ChrisLumix

I like them, they're great fun. I do find it a bit irritating though, that apparently the only version there's ever been of 'Mad World' is the Gary Jules version. Does ANYONE remember the Tears For Fears original?

Still is. Still making new music. Still a curmudgeon...

I think it's also because BP's picture was of a much slower moving river, where water bubbles over rocks like mini-weirs, whereas your picture was of a full size near vertical waterfall where the water is accelerating at 32 feet per second squared, i.e. much faster, and moving predominantly downwards rather than forward with the current. For that, you could get great motion blur at a faster shutter speed simply because the water is moving so much faster.

I still see largely white water there BP. We'll have to agree to differ on this.

That's nice ... but I bet you'd have got the same effect at about ½ second?

That was my point - it stops "flowing" when you use a long exposure and just becomes a solid white lump. Waterfalls are where the water is already moving really fast, and I reckon 1/15 second would get some great motion, perhaps ⅛, but no slower. That's my opinion and experience anyway, based on photo mag tutorials in the 70s and 80s. As you may have realised I feel quite strongly on this subject! There's room for all views I feel, but when the vast majority follow what looks to me like a modern trend, and few adhere to the time-honoured principle, that's when I get up on my soapbox... This was taken at 1/20 second and shows what I think is good motion, but I accept I could have gone slower - say 1/10 second - and it would still be 'moving water', i.e. motion blur.

Good post Leon. This is what I call 'real photography' - communicating something we otherwise wouldn't or couldn't see for ourselves. Puts our hobby into something of a perspective. Brave woman.

Maybe, but I'm now on Mavericks and almost the latest version of Safari, so it should now be ok. I think it was just one of those momentary glitches.

I can see it now. Weirdly I couldn't straight after voting.

And Now For Something Completely Different..

Movement in water needs a shutter speed somewhere between ⅛ and 1/30 second. 'Whited out' water shows no movement whatever, just a solid white curtain.

Oops. Thank you Polly. I should have closed this off. But with a 2-week cycle, and rarely ever winning, it's very easy to lose track! Congratulations SR

Well! I just voted, but nothing has appeared. Shouldn't there be a grid of 'votes so far'?

Sounds like my Mac! Except mine is 2.5 GHz with 6MB L3 cache (said he, reading it off 'System Report'...)

You may call it spit - I call it ... spit, too. (Looks soft until enlarged - view big).

Excellent series. My only moan is that being British only, it doesn't feature the likes of Cartier-Bresson. Also, the first episode (which was also very very good) omitted the likes of Frank Meadow Sutcliffe at the expense of seeing Victoria and her brood. But well worth watching. I got a shock in the second programme when they showed Bill Brandt's photo of miners' cottages in the NE - WITH NO WINDOWS!!! The stuff of nightmare. But superbly photographed.

Welcome to the forums Brian - nice to see a City supporter around the place.

Just upload your catalogue!! Right here..... (Oh, and welcome back. )

Good one Polly!

The great thing about manual focus (especially when that was all you had!) was that you sometimes felt free to experiment. This was a fire engine arriving at the scene (but you knew that...)