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?

1 hour ago, David995031 said:

Sorry, I tend to assume that everyone is in their dotage (like me). Neil Young was (is?) a singer songwriter from back in the stone age.

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

16 hours ago, roicead said:

a lot of it also depends on the flow of the water.  yes, you might get a fair amount of blur with 1/2 sec on a large waterfall that's reached maximum velocity with the help of gravity.  on a slow trickling creek you might need 5 minutes.  on a raindrop sliding down your car after the rain has ended you might lose to evaporation.  this was a slow trickle during a drought, the water on the rocks in the foreground is usually about a foot deep, it was just a few inches when i was there..

 

chris, i think you're seeing a large amount of white because you're looking at such a small area.  look at these photos close up and you'll see details, ebbs and flows around where rocks jut out, pathways taken by the water or trails where leaves or other debris passed through.  that's the one place where digital fails, if everyone's looking at a 900px size photo on a computer screen they only see the big picture and don't see the smaller details like you'd see on a 16x20" print.

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?

8 hours ago, roicead said:

i prefer the smoother look of flowing water.  most of my waterfall shots are over 1 second, up to 30 seconds.  avg. for me seems to be about 5 seconds.

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.

12 hours ago, Clicker said:

Your computer definitely has a mind of it's own Chris ...

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.

2 hours ago, Clicker said:

There is Chris ... I have no idea why you cannot see it ...

 

Your vote has registered too  .

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

1 hour ago, fuzzyedges said:

Was Bill writing about Sir Titus or titus jnr ? I must admit I havnt read NFSI only googled it and the link is about the misfortune of the inhabitants of Milner Field which Titus jnr built when he was in his late twenties 

Ah, it was Jr then. But he did refer to both generations as I remember.

Bill Bryson is equally fascinated by old man Salt, and has quite a diversion on him in Notes From A Small Island.

And Now For Something Completely Different..

On 18 March 2017 at 11:41, roicead said:

generally you use an nd filter when you need to compensate beyond the exposure capabilities of your camera or if you need a particular setting.  nowadays they're used for scenarios like photographing waterfalls and getting movement in the water while shooting in daylight.  shooting exposure times of several seconds or more with a stopped down aperture and lowest iso will still result in an overexposed image.

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. 

On 14 March 2017 at 17:45, Black Pearl said:

Never mind the truffles

40 minutes ago, CanonChrissy said:

The second reason has been time. As some of you know, I was setting up a little business making and selling chocolate truffles. You may (or may not..haha)......................

Just upload your catalogue!! Right here.....

(Oh, and welcome back.  )

Good one Polly!