PDA

View Full Version : Which water image?




Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 07:44 PM
Which water images looks better here? The first two are taken with faster shutter speeds and the last with a 1/4 shutter speed.

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/1616/screenshot2bm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



kretzy
Feb 12, 2006, 07:47 PM
There doesn't seem to be any images. :confused: Is this some kind of prank?

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 07:48 PM
There doesn't seem to be any images. :confused: Is this some kind of prank?

The image loads now :)

kretzy
Feb 12, 2006, 07:54 PM
They're great shots! NZ is really beautiful. I like the last image best, the effect of the water appearing to flow is awesome.

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 08:06 PM
Thanks, I wanted some advice on which one to include in my portfolio. I was leaning towards the third to but I wanted some extra help :)

New Zealand is beautiful, I took these 10 minutes down the road from my house.

SpAtZ
Feb 12, 2006, 08:10 PM
What kind of camera?

Benjamindaines
Feb 12, 2006, 08:13 PM
I'd say the third. How do you like Aperture?

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 08:18 PM
What kind of camera?

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

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 08:19 PM
I'd say the third. How do you like Aperture?

Aperture is great, dont listen to the reviews, go out and try it yourself at an Apple Store. it makes everything so easy and is filled with helpful, timesaving features.

I thought iPhoto was awesome and I didn't need anything else...until I tried Aperture. :)

Benjamindaines
Feb 12, 2006, 08:27 PM
Aperture is great, dont listen to the reviews, go out and try it yourself at an Apple Store. it makes everything so easy and is filled with helpful, timesaving features.

I thought iPhoto was awesome and I didn't need anything else...until I tried Aperture. :)
I have it, I just like knowing peoples' opinions. Do you have any problems with RAW converting? Try this (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Macintosh) and convert the RAW files to DNGs.

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 08:29 PM
I have it, I just like knowing peoples' opinions. Do you have any problems with RAW converting? Try this (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Macintosh) and convert the RAW files to DNGs.

I cant shoot in RAW yet. Another reason for the D50..

Benjamindaines
Feb 12, 2006, 08:31 PM
I cant shoot in RAW yet. Another reason for the D50..
Ah, well for future reference :)

EGT
Feb 12, 2006, 08:37 PM
Aperture is great, dont listen to the reviews, go out and try it yourself at an Apple Store. it makes everything so easy and is filled with helpful, timesaving features.

I thought iPhoto was awesome and I didn't need anything else...until I tried Aperture. :)

Does Aperture manage photos different from iPhoto?

No 3 (the end one) is best.

Clix Pix
Feb 12, 2006, 08:38 PM
Number three. I have always loved that silky appearance that one can get with a slow shutter speed and flowing water. Number two would be my second choice.

zlhade
Feb 12, 2006, 08:43 PM
id say.. the third pic... it's better than the others...
nice shot...

;)

Chaszmyr
Feb 12, 2006, 08:47 PM
The third pic is the most traditional, but I kinda like the first one

bigbossbmb
Feb 12, 2006, 08:56 PM
The third pic is the most traditional, but I kinda like the first one

ditto

Abstract
Feb 12, 2006, 09:57 PM
The third pic is the most traditional, but I kinda like the first one

Me too.

Any time anyone has a shot of moving water, the water looks like it does in the 3rd pic. I don't know why people like it so much, but I guess the 3rd one is a big hit in most people's opinions.

haiggy
Feb 12, 2006, 10:21 PM
I like the first and the third one. The water in the second one doesn't look as nice.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 12, 2006, 10:55 PM
I vote for the slower shutter speed. Would love it even more, with an even lower shutter speed.

devilot
Feb 12, 2006, 10:58 PM
Shrug. I really like the second (middle) one.

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 12, 2006, 11:05 PM
I vote for the slower shutter speed. Would love it even more, with an even lower shutter speed.

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

neocell
Feb 12, 2006, 11:21 PM
Shrug. I really like the second (middle) one.
So do I. I like the glassy bubbliness (sp?) of the water. Much better than either the 1st or the 3rd

devilot
Feb 12, 2006, 11:23 PM
So do I. I like the glassy bubbliness (sp?) of the water. Much better than either the 1st or the 3rdI actually really do NOT like #1. And the 'silky' effect in picture 3 seems so cheesy. :o I imagine seeing it in a mall as one of those 'animated' framed pictures.

ibilly
Feb 12, 2006, 11:44 PM
Though it doesn't have RAW ( :mad: ) the S80 is a GREAT camera. It's no dSLR, but it's reallly good.

Also, I'd push the exposure down to 1/8 or 1/6 just to get the falls to be a bit more "creamy"

e²Studios
Feb 13, 2006, 12:18 AM
I actually really do NOT like #1. And the 'silky' effect in picture 3 seems so cheesy. :o I imagine seeing it in a mall as one of those 'animated' framed pictures.

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

Ed

kiwi-in-uk
Feb 13, 2006, 12:39 AM
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
Feb 13, 2006, 01:22 AM
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 : http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_a80-review/camera-front-angled.jpg

The S80 : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/Canon/s80-frontback-001.jpg

The thread-starter said (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2136038&postcount=8)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
Feb 13, 2006, 01:33 AM
*Cringes* Canon PowerShot A80... I want a Nikon D50.

Don't cringe :p . 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
Feb 13, 2006, 02:34 AM
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 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2136038&postcount=8)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
Feb 13, 2006, 10:04 AM
*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
Feb 13, 2006, 12:07 PM
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
Feb 13, 2006, 12:18 PM
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
Feb 13, 2006, 12:27 PM
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
Feb 13, 2006, 12:40 PM
I actually really do NOT like #1. And the 'silky' effect in picture 3 seems so cheesy. :o 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
Feb 13, 2006, 02:26 PM
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!!! :o

whocares
Feb 13, 2006, 02:31 PM
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.

:eek: :eek:

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

ITASOR
Feb 13, 2006, 02:37 PM
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
Feb 13, 2006, 03:58 PM
#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
Feb 13, 2006, 07:12 PM
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!!! :o
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
Feb 13, 2006, 07:19 PM
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. :p Using his 350D for an hour just reaffirmed my choice.

jared_kipe
Feb 13, 2006, 08:22 PM
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. :p 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
Feb 14, 2006, 07:40 AM
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
Feb 14, 2006, 08:41 AM
*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:
http://my.fcc.net/~hummer/pic/rainbow8rt.jpg
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
Feb 14, 2006, 05:59 PM
I'll take a Tripod next time and try a 5 and 10 second shutter speed. This will look like a painting :D


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

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 14, 2006, 06:03 PM
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
Feb 14, 2006, 06:05 PM
Hey, don't cringe. -hh


Nice pic -hh

jared_kipe
Feb 15, 2006, 12:41 PM
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
Feb 15, 2006, 01:07 PM
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.

evilgEEk
Feb 15, 2006, 09:16 PM
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.

Counterfit
Feb 15, 2006, 10:42 PM
I don't like 1 all that much, 2 would be great if there was no blurring of the water at all (tricky in low light), and 3 is, well, cliché, but still good (and you didn't even use a tripod! :eek: )

mac.FINN
Feb 16, 2006, 08:40 AM
The third one is by far the best! Yes it may be a little cliche, but who cares? Sometimes cliche is good, and in this case; it's definately better than the rest.

In the first shot the water is blurry, but not enough to impress a sense of motion. It just looks like it's out of focus or suffering from camera shake.

I've never been a big fan of water shots where the water is frozen. It sucks all the life and natural beauty out of the image. Water, especially in nature, is supposed to be flowing and lively. This just looks like plastic, and with such low light - dull.

In the final shot, the water is flowing, it's alive. There's a glow coming from the stream which brightens up the picture and gives it purpose. Plus it moves your focus through the picture.

Good work - pick #3!

topher
Feb 16, 2006, 08:57 AM
I would guess that the reason that number 3 is sort of widely used and considered the "classical" approach to shooting running water is that it matches our cognitive perception of running water.
For example, if you think of a water fall (without looking at a picture, or a waterfall) you certainly don't remember waterfalls looking anything like number 2. Truth be told, they don't look much like number 3 either...but because number 3 seems to be most aligned with our ability to cognitively classify the substance/motion combination that is a waterfall, we tend to accept those pictures a little more easily.

With regard to which picture is the best:

Cheesy or not, number 3 has the greatest potential. However, your slower shutter speed has led to blurriness in the background. The foliage in 3 is not as clear as the foliage in 2. Which sort of gives away the fact that the silkiness of the water flow is not natural. Number three would be better if you could assure absolute stillness during the long exposure so that the foliage and other objects in the background are as crisply focused as they are in your number 2. Tough thing to do with plants, as any kind of breeze will hurt your end results.

If this is what you have (no do-overs) and you have to pick one, go for three. But be prepared to explain away some of the lack of focus in the background.

Zeke
Feb 16, 2006, 02:44 PM
A tripod is definitely essential. Even at 1/4s the background looks blurred from movement. In any case, I actually like 1&2 more for this shot. For the long exposure, 2 or 3 seconds tends to be the sweet spot. Just make sure you don't blow out the water.

ChrisBrightwell
Feb 16, 2006, 03:12 PM
Which water images looks better here? The first two are taken with faster shutter speeds and the last with a 1/4 shutter speedI prefer the 3rd, but would've gone for a slightly longer exposure to make the water a bit smoother.

p0intblank
Feb 16, 2006, 03:17 PM
My favorite goes from right to left. The 3rd one is amazing... the way it looks like the water is flowing is awesome. Nice job!

marchcapital
Feb 25, 2006, 09:34 PM
i like the last image the best!