Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Waterfalls of Milk.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Billlee
Billlee  85531 forum posts England
3 Mar 2007 - 3:04 PM

I thought I was the only person in the world with a dislike of waterfall images where the water has been turned into milk by (over) long exposure. Looking at the rave revues on this type of shot I was beginning to feel that I must have a missing gene or something, but I have found two brave souls on here that share my aversion!! What about YOU? What is the concensus??? Bill.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
3 Mar 2007 - 3:04 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023181 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 3:06 PM

Anybody who can afford to fill a waterfall with milk deserves to photograph it how the heck they want...

...I say.

BigCol
BigCol e2 Member 131835 forum postsBigCol vcard Scotland1 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 3:13 PM

If YOU don't like it YOU don't have to do it like that, YOU don't even have to look at it if YOU don't want to.
But please don't try to force YOUR personal preferences on anyone else.

Personally I don't have any problem with people expressing their own preferences through their photography. We are all individuals after all and if we all did things the same way what a dull place this world would be.

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
NevP
NevP  9853 forum posts Canada13 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 3:18 PM

Wouldn't it be a milkfall though?

bmh1
bmh1 e2 Member 8571 forum postsbmh1 vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 3:22 PM


Quote: But please don't try to force YOUR personal preferences on anyone else.

I don't think the OP is trying to force his views on anyone, he's explaining what his views are and trying to canvas opinions to see how many people agree/disagree.

I do find both the very long and very short exposures of moving water interesting as you cannot see these directly yourself, but if I want a 'natural' look I would go for around 1/60th second exposure.

Bernard

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
BigCol
BigCol e2 Member 131835 forum postsBigCol vcard Scotland1 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 3:29 PM

Maybe not in this post but here's a comment by the OP previously left on a waterfall image.

Quote: ( I am leading a one man campaign against waterfall shots where the water looks like milk!! )

randomrubble
3 Mar 2007 - 3:35 PM


Quote: Looking at the rave revues on this type of shot

Since it's a well known technique and a matter of taste I'd imagine that those who don't go for it just pass on by rather than commenting. I can take it or leave it but, personally, I'd probaly not open a waterfall shot of any description...

Slightly off topic, I remember a particularly nasty variation on waterfall shots that the cokin catalogue had back in the 80s where you got red green and blue filters, exposed with each and got patches of the different colours. Did anyone ever try that one?

User_Removed
3 Mar 2007 - 4:00 PM

YOU're not alone Bill.

'-)

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
Potto
Potto  10 United Kingdom
3 Mar 2007 - 4:17 PM

Personally, I really like the milky effect, but we used to have a judge on the local camera club circuit who loathed it. I soon learnt that if he was judging not to put any waterfalls into the compatition.

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 5:12 PM

The milky look may be something of a cliche but it does simplify the composition and avoids a lot of contrast issues. If you go for a more 'natural' approach, it tends to look rather messy in comparison.

Besides, is freezing every last droplet in space really any more natural than the blurred look?

SuziBlue
SuziBlue  1116195 forum posts Scotland10 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 6:53 PM


Quote: Besides, is freezing every last droplet in space really any more natural than the blurred look?

Well since you ask, yes I think so .. 8-P lol I think it depends on the picture and the circumstances actually. In smooth abstracts (like your tongue pic) a smooth line of water looks better, but for me a woodland image of a waterfall surrounded by foliage and furry woodland creatures to me doesn't look right if the water is one smooth mass of Gold Top. There again, it depends on the purpose of the picture - someone who specialises in mystical pics like arwensgrace can use a long exposure on water and add an extra dimension altogether to her images.

In general, I prefer sharp water but there are exceptions to every rule. I'll often find an image with soft water that really hits the spot with me. Maybe it's because I like the sound and smell of water in a pic as well as the image of it that I prefer it looking sharp.

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
Billlee
Billlee  85531 forum posts England
3 Mar 2007 - 7:10 PM

It seems I have opened a can of worms here, or should that be a bottle of milk?? I was merely seeking to find out what other people thought about this type of shot as I had started to question my own judgement:o) BigCol, as to my remark about my one man campaign, this was a tongue in the cheek remark and I hope it was taken as such. It still doesn't alter my view on the subject. Joolsb, as to the question of any waterfall shot looking natural, this is not an issue, what is aesthetically pleasing is obviously a matter of personal choice and obviously a lot (Majority?) of people seem to like the milky versions of waterfalls..........personally I like abstracts but waterfalls are not really in that category! As to the suggestion, that if we do not like a picture or some aspect of it we should not comment on it rather defeats the object of putting shots on epz for people to look at and give their opinions.................. Finally, thankyou Bernard and Mike for a bit of moral support! Bill. Edit, Thankyou Sue, very eloquently put!

MeanGreeny
3 Mar 2007 - 7:30 PM

I like exposures around the 1/4 to 1/8 of a second duration for water depending upon it's speed. i.e. fast water = 1/8 and slow water = 1/4.

I think it freezes the water [not the milk] but it retains a hint of movement. I think it's luvverly and everybody should do it that way - no exceptions............... especially BigCol.

*snigger*

rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
3 Mar 2007 - 7:36 PM


Quote: with a dislike of waterfall images where the water has been turned into milk by (over) long exposure.

I take it you also include all moving water images not just waterfalls. If thats the case then yes I just love 'em. Thats because it's an image that the human eye will never ever see except in a photograph. Anyway, since when has a 'natural'photograph ever been interesting? As photographers we all alter the original image to a certain extent to make it more interesting i.e make the skies more dramatic etc.( even easier with digital). Nope, I can't get enough of them - but there again thats me and I'm probably regarded as a boring old f**t.

martin.w
martin.w e2 Member 12352 forum postsmartin.w vcard United Kingdom22 Constructive Critique Points
3 Mar 2007 - 7:45 PM

I use both, depending on conditions and the subject. As an example, I often go to Padley Gorge and it can be quite dark so therefore not giving me the choice of using a faster shutter speed. I don't really see the problem, like anything else, if you don't like it, just ignore it Smile

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.