Which water image?

[e²Studios]

I actually really do NOT like #1. And the 'silky' effect in picture 3 seems so cheesy. I imagine seeing it in a mall as one of those 'animated' framed pictures.

I saw one of those in a chinese restaurant yesterday I vote for the middle one too

Ed

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

If you are building a portfolio, why not choose two shots? The cheesy long exposure, and a short exposure (even shorter than #2).

Good to see you are starting to exercise the S80 - you can learn a lot from that camera before you hit its limits and need an SLR.

Try some morning, midday and evening shots of the same subject & note the differences in colour. Also (in many parts of NZ) there can be a big difference in light from one season to another.

 

[x86isslow]

I'd like to take this moment to point out that there are two different cameras that people seem to be confusing here:

The A80 :

The S80 :

The thread-starter said he had the first (the a80), which is a fairly low-end Canon model, while the s80 is waay on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[annk]

*Cringes* Canon PowerShot A80... I want a Nikon D50.

Don't cringe . I have a Canon PowerShot S2 IS, and though I REALLY want to go out and get a DSLR right away, I've decided I have to learn everything I can do with my current equipment, before getting anything else. I figure if I give in to my excitement and go out and buy now, I won't really know what functions I want and need.

So for now, I'll just drool over my friends' great cameras, but enjoy what I have.

 

[kiwi-in-uk]

I'd like to take this moment to point out that there are two different cameras that people seem to be confusing here:
The A80 :
The S80 :
The thread-starter said he had the first (the a80), which is a fairly low-end Canon model, while the s80 is waay on the other end of the spectrum.

True - I only looked back a couple of posts & therefore continued the mistake.

However my point remains. There is a whole lot you can learn about photography using a camera as simple as an A80. If you learn to differentiate between a technically competent shot and a good photograph, then you are on your way.

 

[jared_kipe]

*Cringes* Canon PowerShot A80... I want a Nikon D50.

I don't want to start a flame war here, but what is the reason you'd want a D50 over Canon's digital rebel line?

 

[whocares]

I vote for the slower shutter speed. Would love it even more, with an even lower shutter speed.

Ditto.

But maybe 1/4 sec was the slowest you could go... Yet another advantage to the (D)SLR: you can use ND filters to reduce light and get even longer shutter speeds.

 

[JDar]

Very nice! I vote for #3, and the trendy way to show running water at the moment seems to be just like that. In time that may change and all water must be in sharp focus. Next try the tripod with the slow shutter speed and you'll be in business.

 

[ibook30]

Shrug. I really like the second (middle) one.

I second that .

The shape of the blobs of water in #2 offer more detail- similiar to all the detail in rest of the photo.

The silky water in #3 contrasts with the rest of the photo - and it's not the type of contrast (I think) this photo needs.

Also- the water in #2 holds my attention longer, the "silky" water in #3 becomes a line that leads my eye towards the bottom right.

 

[nbs2]

I actually really do NOT like #1. And the 'silky' effect in picture 3 seems so cheesy. I imagine seeing it in a mall as one of those 'animated' framed pictures.

I wasn't sure how to explain my distaste for number three, but I think that was exactly what I'm looking for.

As for my opinion, I kind of prefer 2. I thought 1 looks kind of like you (or nature) couldn't make up your mind between 2 and 3 and used a little of both.

 

[Abstract]

I don't want to start a flame war here, but what is the reason you'd want a D50 over Canon's digital rebel line?

Lets never ask that question again, as in.......forbidden. I asked that very same question, along with the D70s, and people got banned and brought back and banned and brought back again.

And while I said I liked #1 the most, I actually meant #2. I just agreed with the wrong person by mistake, and he liked #1. D'OH!!!

 

[whocares]

Lets never ask that question again, as in.......forbidden. I asked that very same question, along with the D70s, and people got banned and brought back and banned and brought back again.

I must have missed that... What a hopelessly stupid thing to get banned for, especially on Mac-oriented website.

 

[ITASOR]

Shrug. I really like the second (middle) one.

I was going to post the same thing. I like how the water is almost captured with no motion in the 2nd one...almost like it's frozen...

 

[FoxyKaye]

#2 or #3 - I'd say it depends a little on to whom you'd be submitting your portfolio. IMHO, portfolio are like resumes and coverletters, they need to be tailored a bit to the recipient.

Nice shots all around, though. Nothing's more fun than playing with effects, shutter speeds and lighting.

 

[jared_kipe]

Lets never ask that question again, as in.......forbidden. I asked that very same question, along with the D70s, and people got banned and brought back and banned and brought back again.

And while I said I liked #1 the most, I actually meant #2. I just agreed with the wrong person by mistake, and he liked #1. D'OH!!!

I know it starts flame wars. I hope they finally banned moxie mike, that guy could be a real jerk. I just wonder, because nikon finally gets a reasonable sensor in the D50 but they cripple it compared to the D70.

 

[Abstract]

H was involved, but he wasn't a main culprit... Anyway, the past is the past. I haven't seen anything but good, informative posts from those guys for awhile, and I think they all know what they like and want from their equipment at this point. It helps us get different perspectives, that's all.

Point is that you're going to get beautiful shots from the D50, D70s, and 350D. Just hold them all, change some settings around, and see. I love Canon stuff, but still got the D50 because the ergonomics on the 350D, and just the overall feel of the camera, were poor in comparison to the D50, IMO. I can definitely do things quicker with the D50, and my friend, who got a 350D in the same week as I got my D50, seems to have a little bit of D50 envy once I gave him a chance to use it. Using his 350D for an hour just reaffirmed my choice.

 

[jared_kipe]

H was involved, but he wasn't a main culprit... Anyway, the past is the past. I haven't seen anything but good, informative posts from those guys for awhile, and I think they all know what they like and want from their equipment at this point. It helps us get different perspectives, that's all.

Point is that you're going to get beautiful shots from the D50, D70s, and 350D. Just hold them all, change some settings around, and see. I love Canon stuff, but still got the D50 because the ergonomics on the 350D, and just the overall feel of the camera, were poor in comparison to the D50, IMO. I can definitely do things quicker with the D50, and my friend, who got a 350D in the same week as I got my D50, seems to have a little bit of D50 envy once I gave him a chance to use it. Using his 350D for an hour just reaffirmed my choice.

While its true I don't think the digital rebels have the best control scheme (better canons like the 20D and 5D are much better) I find I can generally do anything I want quickly with my rebel. Though for controls the Minolta 7D was/is the best. I also think they made the 350D to freaking small. But for me, usability takes a somewhat back seat to photographic ability. And I believe that is where the canons reign supreme. Like I said the D50 has a good sensor (better than the D70) but won't let you do iso 100, and is otherwise handicapped. The D200 is a great camera, if it only didn't have its banding issue it would have been a very good launch. However, I've held nikons, and while they fell good sized the control scheme seems like nikon's playing a "I can put more buttons here than you" game with everyone.

 

[JDar]

Back to the water

As FoxyKaye said you have to tailor things...

Photo editors seem to be presenting flowing water in a blur for some reason. I suppose they think most reader/lookers find that the most attractive. Current commercial photo books also go for this look. For personal purposes you can show water however you want and find it the most pleasing. Personally I prefer a little flow blur but not the silky look--that looks fake to me.

Even general color casts in magazine photos seem to change with the whims of editors. Anyone else notice that for a long while everything was sort of yellowish? Now it seems to be returning to truer color presentation.

 

[-hh]

*Cringes* Canon PowerShot A80...

Hey, don't cringe. My P&S is an A80 too, and it really does quite well.

For example, go look at the OP's photo's at the start of this thead

...and I'm dead serious when I say to think about being successful in getting the "silky flowing water" effect from a "mere" P&S. Especially when without a tripod!

Thus said, my choices between 1-2-3 is #3. Reason being:

Image #1 looks like someone tried to get the 'silky water' effect, but failed to do so, because of a not long enough shutter.

Similarly, #2 looks like it was an attempt to absolutely freeze motion, but also failed, due to not a short enough shutter.

Perhaps its because of factors of the above that #3 is considered to be "the" classical approach for moving water.

FWIW, when using long shutter speeds for the effect, don't assume a "one size fits all" when it comes to shutter speeds. Yes, you'll need a certain minimum shutter to get sufficient motion blur, but there's not necessarily an upper limit, so do try different durations.

For example, you can sometimes use "very long" exposures to create the illusion of more total water flow. This can be useful if there's "too little" water flow for your intended composition...for example, a small dribble of water due to drought or seasonal variation can be made to look "normal", or a normal flow can be give the illustion of a deluge, especially if it has a lot of wide spray that will fill itself in.

Here's an example...this waterfall was a very weak dribble:

Flatbed scan of an 8x12 print. Rainbow Falls, Great Smokies National Park,
35mm Pentax K-1000 SLR, 28mm @ f/22?, ~2sec, w/polarizer & Kodak Ektar ISO 25.


As always, its useful to experiment. This also means trying the same composition with a polarizer at a few different angles. This is not easy to do with a P&S, granted, but ... hmm ... I'd bet that I could hand-hold one of my SLR polarizers in front of an A80, especially if I had the A80 on a tripod.


-hh

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'll take a Tripod next time and try a 5 and 10 second shutter speed. This will look like a painting

Having some neutral density filters helps you when it is too bright also.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I know it starts flame wars. I hope they finally banned moxie mike, that guy could be a real jerk. I just wonder, because nikon finally gets a reasonable sensor in the D50 but they cripple it compared to the D70.

You may say "crippled", but look at the D50 as something for those moving up from P&S's. The D50 gives JPEGs that are ready to print. For those that want more control, the D50 does RAW. Also the metering system is designed to handle highlights and shadows better according to Nikon.

The Canon Rebel XT is a great camera, and gives .5fps better than the Nikon. The supposed "smoother" high ISO pics because of CMOS. And I personally love the ability to shoot B&W JPEGs and have the RAW for color.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Hey, don't cringe. -hh

Nice pic -hh

 

[jared_kipe]

Having some neutral density filters helps you when it is too bright also.

Or a polarizer, cuts 1/2 the light, and if you want more cut than that? Simply put another polarizer ontop of it and rotate it to any angle you want or ~1/2 light to 0 light.

bonus points to someone who explains why I said ~1/2 light.

 

[whocares]

Or a polarizer, cuts 1/2 the light, and if you want more cut than that? Simply put another polarizer ontop of it and rotate it to any angle you want or ~1/2 light to 0 light.

bonus points to someone who explains why I said ~1/2 light.

2 crossed nickols = no light.

2 aligned nickols = 1 nickol



The small print:

Light can be described as an electromagnetic wave, in essence the combination of an electric and a magnetic wave. Both waves oscillate at equal frequencies but on orthogonal planes.

If both waves are in phase, the resulting wave will vibrate in a linear manner. Image the wave vector as an oscillating pendulum seen from below.
If both waves are out of phase by π, then the resulting wave will vibrate in a circular manner. Image the wave vector turning round in a circle.
In all other cases the resulting wave will vibrate in a ellipsoidal manner.

What a nichol lens (a polariser) does is only let through light rays vibrating parallel to the nichol's polarising direction. For example, if your light is vibrating N-S and your polariser is oriented N-S then all the light gets through, but if your polariser is oriented E-W, then nothing does. If your light is vibrating in a circular or ellipsoidal manner, then some light gets through.

In all cases, light that got through the polariser is only vibrating in a linear manner, parallel to the polariser's orientation. Such light is called polarised light (as opposed to incoherent light).

So to answer jared_kipe's question, if your first polariser is set N-S and so is the second, the second polariser is redundant and serves no purpose. If the second is oriented E-W, then all the light rays are blocked. Anywhere in between, a proportion of the light gets through, proportional to cos(ß) (where ß is the angle between the polarisers).


Application to photography:


Light bouncing of certain reflective surfaces (non-metallic surfaces I think) like the sky, water, glass, etc. get polarised during the reflection. By turning the polariser filter on your lens you can choose which reflected waves you see/use/capture. This is how you can get rid of your reflection in a shop window, or enhance the clouds' reflections on a lake.


I knew my mineralogy courses would come in handy one day.

 

[echeck]

Which water images looks better here? The first two are taken with faster shutter speeds and the last with a 1/4 shutter speed.

I don't think any of them look any better or worse than the others. I think they're all very nice captures, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you want slight motion then go with A. If you're looking for a sharper, crisper image then go with B. But if you're going for depicting motion through a still frame then, of course, go with C.

The silky look of the water in C has always grabbed me, but when I'm photographing water I generally do exactly what you did and capture both a still image of the water and then go for the motion.

Regardless of which one you include it will be a good choice.


EDIT: Even though there are some absolutely beautiful places in my neck of the woods (Northwest U.S.), I envy you for being in New Zealand. I would love to go there someday and see the awesome sights that your country has to offer.