First time posting. I thought about cropping out the opening in the in the sky thinking that the bright spot might pull your eye out of frame but I thought it looked better with it in.
Nikon D600
24-70mm 2.8
@24mm
1/2 sec
f5.6
ISO 100
Polarizing filter
2 exposures focus stacked
SOOC
Welcome to the forum, Ryan!
Hy Ryan, you did a perfect job with your first image post here, congrats! I've just discovered it when answering Jeremey to the second version of his "morning mood" capture. And yes, I like how you show the water here as water and didn't "convert" it into some undefined "silk" like most western photographers do nowadays. This said I clearly disagree to Ian's proposition in his critique session 7 "to slow down the shutter speed to blur the motion of the water" so that it can't anymore "distract from the overall composition". Can the motion of water be showed only by blurring it?
Ryan, welcome to the forum, I also like the first one, but for some reason the red leaf just stands out a bit too much for me, and that is probably just a personal choice. As for the water motion, I like it just the way you captured it, not every scene should have blurred water, - you nailed it. great shot
Thanks guys. I might have over-done the processing a little. I just figured out some new techniques so I might have got a little excited.
And as for the water, I feel like my water is blurred. I think what Ian meant was softening the water as opposed to freezing it.
froze
softend
Yeah Ryan I agree. I think you did pick a good shutter, not so long that it's like fog and it's boring, but not so short you froze it. I love a little texture in the water. I think that it really just depends on the scene. Sometimes freezing it is pretty cool too. I dunno, haha. But good first forum post, excited to see more.
My girlfriend hates photos with blurry or silky waterfalls. She prefers the water frozen. She is not a photographer. It's a personal preference, i guess, and begs the question, who do we want to like our photos? Other photographers or everyone else?
Well, it's not a question of beeing (thinking of?) a photographer or not. It's what YOU want to tell with your capture. Ian's comment to Ryan's "Waterfall" meant that Ryan could emphasize the structure of the rocks on both sides by blurring the water with an exposure of severel seconds. If he wants this, then it's ok. If he wants to show the nature of the water or even the mood of the scene, he would miss his goal. And, again: blurring water is something almost every American photographer (but not much on the continent) does these days. It's "en vogue". And it will disappear again. Then your blurred water-capture looks rather old. However: I like that this topic has triggered a lively professional's discussion here. That's exactly what Ian wanted since long. Am I right, Ian?
this conversation is exactly why I am here, good conversation about techniques, photography like many other forms of art is in the eye of the beholder, - for me, it is more about what I as the photographer envision when I created the photograph.. Hopefully my vision gets conveyed in the final photo, I am not a heavy handed post processer, so I really strive to get it right in the camera settings.
again - awesome discussion!
Not sure what I can add to this conversation... But I'll start with being a Christian, my 'goal' with photography isn't firstly to please others or even myself but to bring glory to God. I know not everyone here will understand that but it's just how it is. It's the most important thing to me in this.
That all being said I think I agree with what everyone is saying. Art is kind of a personal thing and so the intentions of the photographer are important in the decision making of the shot. But art also has some 'rules' (air quotes because artistic rules are not necessarily set in stone). While personal, it's also something we generally share with others, so their thoughts do matter to a degree.
And this forum is a great place where we can bounce off each other to learn how to take the photos we want to make, but maybe don't quite know how to get there yet. Photography as an art is a growth process.
There has to be some semblance of cohesion to the photograph though. I can take a picture of something really poorly composed and ugly and say I meant it that way, but that doesn't make it a good photo. And I'm not referring to anybody's photo here, just making a general statement.
Far as the water thing, I agree with Chris that it is really up to what the photographer is trying to convey. But there are some hard and fast rules that tend to work better than others. I do agree silky water is a little too en vogue, seems everyone likes their 10 stop filters (I don't have one, I'm cheap). But generally, for me, I do prefer a bit of blurring (not too much, usually I think I care more about the aperture than shutter speed) to give a sense of motion so it doesn't look like an ice sculpture. Ryan did a good job there in his photo. That's my 2 cents, haha. Man this is gonna make me self conscious next time I photograph a waterfall haha 🤣
@Ryan Daugherty thanks, bud, I really appreciate it. Yeah I think we might have a few East Coasters on this forum
I like how you have processed this. Plus lovely colors! I think the bright spot isn't that bad as it is in the diaganol of the river... maybe take down the brightness a bit? Also not sure what the red item is. It does give the eye a place to rest, but then it's kinda confusing not knowing what it is.....
It is a leaf. I should have gotten closer to it probably.
absolutely love it Ryan from composition to post. Love how you added that warm light.
I didn't plan this but this this kind of worked out well I think.
The light is a nice touch and transforms the raw file into something compelling. Nicely done.