The Fuzzy Water Syndrome

[jbylake]

I never see a shot of a creek, stream, or any water, with ripples, or sharp outline of the charactaristics of the water.

Just the "dreamy, hazy, fuzzy water" effect. Is it considered "out dated", or out of vogue, to capture moving water as it is seen by the eye, with all of the interesting little ripples, reflections, shadows and highlights that you would actually see it?

I see this "effect" of shot's of moving water, water coming off of falls, or swirling tides near shore's, and while, long ago I thought it was cool, but now it just seems to be "mandatory". It looks to me, after a while, like looking through my eyes with about 10 shots of Tequila and a twelve pack of beer, filtering the image.

Should I refrain from posting a shot of a rippling stream, without the "fuzz" effect, for fear of being ridiculed as "out of touch" or "old school"?

Seriously, this is a trend I've seen on just about every photography site I've visited, and I personally think real water movement, caught on film, is more interesting, than what I personally think looks like something I would see after a "Cheech and Chong" marathon session.

Just wondered if anyone else has an opinion on this, one way or the other. It may be just because I always had a fascination with water, be it the ocean, a lake, a fast moving stream, or lazy river, and think it looks better in it's natural state. The "fuzzy effect" would be cool, occasionally, if it were used as a sort of artist's conception, and the rest of the photo is geared towards that "dream like" state. I dunno, what do you think?

J.:cheers:

[mentos_007]

Well, it all depends what you want to show. If willing to show the denger, the aggresion and the rapid movement - I would definitely use fast shutter to capture every single drop (like I did in general gallery in the thread with Woodstock'09 pictures :) )
But if I am willing to show something romantic or moody I use longer ecposure. This gives a calm look to it for me.

[NateS]

Maybe it's me, but when I see a flowing stream in person, I do not see sharp edges and sharp lines in the ripples. Due to the constant flow of water, I see more movement and more "blur" in real life.

When I take a picture of water using a fast shutter speed, it is less realistic to me. I have never looked at a stream in person and been able to see and definie the edges of water riples and waterfalls. Instead I see a constant flow of water.

I agree that the effect of using a longer shutter speed can be taken beyond what the eye sees, but stopping motion in water can go beyond what the eye sees as well. If you want it to be as close to what you saw, you will not want sharp edges as you say. If you can see and define the sharp edges of ripples in real life, then your eyes definitely have a faster shutter speed than mine.

[jbylake]

Maybe it's me, but when I see a flowing stream in person, I do not see sharp edges and sharp lines in the ripples. Due to the constant flow of water, I see more movement and more "blur" in real life.

When I take a picture of water using a fast shutter speed, it is less realistic to me. I have never looked at a stream in person and been able to see and definie the edges of water riples and waterfalls. Instead I see a constant flow of water.

I agree that the effect of using a longer shutter speed can be taken beyond what the eye sees, but stopping motion in water can go beyond what the eye sees as well. If you want it to be as close to what you saw, you will not want sharp edges as you say. If you can see and define the sharp edges of ripples in real life, then your eyes definitely have a faster shutter speed than mine.

I guess, in your case it's a matter of perception. I'm an avid trout fisherman, and spend much time knee deep in trout streams. I'm constantly watching the water, especially through polarized sunglasses, and see every thing in ripples, eddy's...always looking for a spot that that trout might be hiding. I've lived directly on a lake for years, and the only time I've ever seen it look "blurred" as it does in some of those pic's I see, is if it's a:frozen b: foggy. River rafting on the Colorodo, well I see a lot of white water, but also splashes and droplets going everywhich way, that is when I don't have my eyes shut tight from fear of drowning..:biglaugh:Surfing, same thing, solid moving inside the curl, white water, and uncontrolled splashing, and sudsy, foamy, looking water everywhere, including up my nose. (At my age I don't do the surfing thing anymore), but the only time I ever saw a "sureallistic" blur that I was, was usually during a "crash and burn", and again when I had my eyes shut from fear of drowning.:big grin: Maybe we aren't talking the same degree as to the motion of the water. I ususally see crisp outlines and highlights everywhere. I've seen waterfalls that look like pure white gushes, but none that looked "smooth", surreal, like a dream. I just see a trend where photo's make moving water look like blurry mounds of polished marble, with the obligitory milky haze floating over everything. Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective.

J.:cheers:

[NateS]

I guess, in your case it's a matter of perception. I'm an avid trout fisherman, and spend much time knee deep in trout streams. I'm constantly watching the water, especially through polarized sunglasses, and see every thing in ripples, eddy's...always looking for a spot that that trout might be hiding. I've lived directly on a lake for years, and the only time I've ever seen it look "blurred" as it does in some of those pic's I see, is if it's a:frozen b: foggy. River rafting on the Colorodo, well I see a lot of white water, but also splashes and droplets going everywhich way, that is when I don't have my eyes shut tight from fear of drowning..:biglaugh:Surfing, same thing, solid moving inside the curl, white water, and uncontrolled splashing, and sudsy, foamy, looking water everywhere, including up my nose. (At my age I don't do the surfing thing anymore), but the only time I ever saw a "sureallistic" blur that I was, was usually during a "crash and burn", and again when I had my eyes shut from fear of drowning.:big grin: Maybe we aren't talking the same degree as to the motion of the water. I ususally see crisp outlines and highlights everywhere. I've seen waterfalls that look like pure white gushes, but none that looked "smooth", surreal, like a dream. I just see a trend where photo's make moving water look like blurry mounds of polished marble, with the obligitory milky haze floating over everything. Again, I guess it's a matter of perspective.

J.:cheers:

Yup....it's definitely both perspective and personal taste. I think there is a time and place for it. If the mood of the scene is a really bright day with that cheery look, I think less "blur" in the water is better. If there is a really surreal mood to a scene such as Mohain's recent post, I think the blurry/foggy look to the water matches the scene better and looks better overall. Obviously, that is my personal opinion and tastes will vary...that's what's great about photography is that it can be subjective which allows you to have more artistic freedom with what you (not others) want your scene to look like in your photograph.

[PhotoJet]

I think it depends (like mentos said) on what exactly you are trying to convey. For me, personally, I have always loved the look of the 'slowed down' water. But there are times when I want that movement to show. That sharp-edged power of moving water, or even better, that look of moving water that appears like a thickened (but not slowed) water.
Many times when I shoot water, I am focusing on the interplay of water (usually in a falls or rill) and some other element (rocks, branches). Most of the time, I will show the water 'slowed' because I don't really give a rat's ear that the water is fast and hard. I want to see how it is interacting with the rocks or branches, and that is totally missed in a short shutter speed shot.
So it just depends on our ways of 'seeing' and what it is we are seeing.

[jbylake]

I think it depends (like mentos said) on what exactly you are trying to convey. For me, personally, I have always loved the look of the 'slowed down' water. But there are times when I want that movement to show. That sharp-edged power of moving water, or even better, that look of moving water that appears like a thickened (but not slowed) water.
Many times when I shoot water, I am focusing on the interplay of water (usually in a falls or rill) and some other element (rocks, branches). Most of the time, I will show the water 'slowed' because I don't really give a rat's ear that the water is fast and hard. I want to see how it is interacting with the rocks or branches, and that is totally missed in a short shutter speed shot.
So it just depends on our ways of 'seeing' and what it is we are seeing.

I agree with everything that's been said, but it just seems to me that there is a growing tendency to "over do" the effect. On other forums, where forumites pick a pic of the month or whatever, it seems that the person that over does it, that is, the water looks more like the vapor escaping off of dry ice, or a cloud bank rolling down a steep bluff, will always be chosen over the photo, where the photog, used a fast shutter speed to capture the water in motion. I've just been seeing this over and over, and while they (slowed water) look very nice, I just thought the trend was just that, a trend, albeit an old one, and just got over done, and just so much that it doesn't really even look like water anymore.

Just Curious,

J.:cheers:

[Fox Paw]

Post what grabs you, jbylake. Ignore what doesn't.

[jbylake]

Post what grabs you, jbylake. Ignore what doesn't. Hey what's up with that. Not ranting or raving..you're response has a tone to it that sounds a little, well,...they're your words.

Not knocking anyone's vision of art, just posing a question, if it perturb's you, maybe you might take your own advice?....Everyone else seemed to "get" it, and kept it to a "conceptual" conversation. Funny, I don't see anything that you contributed to this thread but your 'tude.

J.:cheers:

[anwmn1]

Hey what's up with that. Not ranting or raving..you're response has a tone to it that sounds a little, well,...they're your words.

Not knocking anyone's vision of art, just posing a question, if it perturb's you, maybe you might take your own advice?....Everyone else seemed to "get" it, and kept it to a "conceptual" conversation. Funny, I don't see anything that you contributed to this thread but your 'tude.

J.:cheers:

I don't think that was what they were saying at all. I believe Fox Paw was saying for you simply to not worry about it.

If the mass of voters in a photo of the month scenario vote for a photo with blurred water than that is what they prefer. If you think it is overdone that is your own personal view and impression. Obviously it bothers you a little bit based on starting a thread and some of the comments you have made. Seems you prefer to shoot the other way which some people may love and others may not.

I personally feel it is up to each photographer to shoot the way they want and for each viewer to decide if they like it or not. In some cases I may feel a fast shutter works best and in others a slow shutter may work best.

For me it really depends on each individual scene. How deep/ wide is the water? How fast is the water moving? At what volume? What is the current light? Is the water the subject or contributing to the subject?

If the light is right I will shoot both and pick the one that works best.
Example- same scene two different exposures
1. Slow Shutter
http://aaronnewman.smugmug.com/photos/261021281_QSb5p-L-1.jpg

2. Fast Shutter
http://aaronnewman.smugmug.com/photos/261021586_TB4d7-L-1.jpg

I feel the fast shutter works better in this particular instance because it is small scene and you can really get a feeling of cool refreshing water in the 2nd shot that is not there in the first.

In a larger scene I tend to have a more creamy motion feel to the water because a fast shutter will not allow the water to be scene. That or the scene is so dark that the water is blurred simply by the time it takes to expose the scene.

just my thoughts.

[jbylake]

:gah:
First, I have no emotional attachment to this thread. Was just wondering what others had to say.

1st, You're first shot is not "over done" in my opinion, so I don't think you got a grasp on what I was talking about.

If I can't ask/pose a question without someone getting their A$$ hairs on full alert, what's the purpose.

Puleeezzzee,
'Nuff said.......sorry I asked. This place is getting a little like another forum I used to belong too. I'm glad I didn't ask about color saturation, sure as hell, someone would have called me a racist...:puke:

J.:boogie:

[NateS]

:gah:
First, I have no emotional attachment to this thread. Was just wondering what others had to say.

1st, You're first shot is not "over done" in my opinion, so I don't think you got a grasp on what I was talking about.

If I can't ask/pose a question without someone getting their A$$ hairs on full alert, what's the purpose.

Puleeezzzee,
'Nuff said.......sorry I asked. This place is getting a little like another forum I used to belong too. I'm glad I didn't ask about color saturation, sure as hell, someone would have called me a racist...:puke:

J.:boogie:

I think you are taking it too personally. Myself and many others responded with well thought out responses and opinions. Even the last response by anwmn1 seemed to be very legitimate. I think he/she got your point and was just pointing out how sometimes blur works better, sometimes no blur works better....I prefer his second shot as well.

Don't let one post that you don't like effect all the good posts that you did like. On another forum that you speak of (I know where you mean btw), it would be one decent post and a dozen pointless posts....exact opposite here.

[Antarctican]

Maybe it's just me, but I actually took Fox Paw's comment ("post what grabs you, jbylake") as being supportive of your right to post pics of water depicted the way you like to depict it (rather than your hypothetical refraining from posting a shot unless it has the 'fuzz' effect to it). Using phrases like "someone getting one's @ss hairs on full alert" isn't the kind of response we like to see around here, as we want to keep this a friendly, respectful forum. :D

[mentos_007]

Well, I think it is high time to stop arguing and messing this forum.

So, thank you anwnm1, for posting the two pics of the same crop that we can compare. In my personal opinion both pisa are very nice. But shows something completely diferent. While the first one is "romantic" and gives me a look of warmth (like...it were summer, sun, lazy afternoon by the water). The second one gives some...freezing look, it is agressive and very dynamic. I like both of them, :-)
And if I were asked to take a pic for a romantic person, because she/he wants the pic on their wall in bedroom I'd take the first one.

[anwmn1]

:gah:
First, I have no emotional attachment to this thread. Was just wondering what others had to say.

1st, You're first shot is not "over done" in my opinion, so I don't think you got a grasp on what I was talking about.

If I can't ask/pose a question without someone getting their A$$ hairs on full alert, what's the purpose.

Puleeezzzee,
'Nuff said.......sorry I asked. This place is getting a little like another forum I used to belong too. I'm glad I didn't ask about color saturation, sure as hell, someone would have called me a racist...:puke:

J.:boogie:


How about you post some examples then because it is very obvious no one is clearly understanding what you are saying. Your comments about other people getting upset are delusional. You are the only one that has posted any comments that could come across as getting hairs tangled up.




http://home.freeuk.com/jrknight/smileys/postpics.gif

[Alex]

jbylak, I could not see anyone getting upset in this thread either. Sometimes the written word is deceiving, leading to wrong conclusions regarding the writers emotions :)

I would not see Fox Paw upset, just because a very short and precise answer was given. "Post what grabs you, jbylake. Ignore what doesn't" to me sounds more like an encouragement to post those images which you like, which mean something to you. And not to care too much about others, since taste is subjective anyway.

This is a very simple recipe. And very nice advice. :)

Coming back to the original question, both styles have their purpose, both styles give a different mood to an image. So the photographer decides what he wants to create. There is no old style or modern style in that respect in my opinion. I use both.

[jbylake]

I was going to just ignore this thread and let it die, but just so it won't end on a caustic note, I ask you to induldge me one last time. First, please re-read my origional post. It was a question, not an opinionated statement of fact. I thought that was what forums were intended for. Sharing and obtaining different points of view on various subjects, in this case related to photography, requesting help, offering help, critique, etc.

Read all the way down to Foxpaw's post. Everything prior, was a sharing of ideas on the subject, which was the the whole point of my starting this thread.

Then comes a post, offering no opinion either way, just a "post what grabs you, like ignore the rest". The inference I made was a thinly veiled "if you don't like it move on". Well, excuse me, but I started the thread, for a reason, and up to that point I had various points of view and interesting points at that.

Then amwn1 posts, that Foxpaw was telling me "not to worry about it".
Trust me I wasn't worried about it. Haven't lost a minutes sleep over it.
However, how would one of you like to post a question, and have someone tell you "not to worry about it"? Get my point, I didn't ask a personal question, like how much is your portfolio worth, to deserve to be told "not to worry about it". amwn1, then posted to pic's, one with a longer exposure, one with a crisp fast exposure. I replied to amnw1 that I didn't think that his/her photo with the longer exposure was not over done, and wasn't really representative of what I was trying to say. No offense there, that I can see, anyway I look at it. Just a nice pic with a longer exposure. I think I made myself clear when I described the surrealistic type that are so "radical" as to not even appear to be water. That was my origional post.

Please amwn1, if you don't mind, I don't worry about too awful much, especially these posts. Not saying I don't enjoy them, but other than a hearty laugh, when someone posts something that was meant to be funny. My laughter is the only emotional attachment that I have to a forum. Other than the fact that I thought that both pics that amnwn1 posted were quite good, I don't enjoy being told not to worry about it (it being the subject that I origionally posted in a thread that I started it. I have to admit I did take a miniscule amount of umbrage, to being told "not to worry about it". If I had posted a question about the quality of a lens, for example, and someone told me not to worry about it, well, put yourself in that position.

Antartican weighs in chiding me for my response, about "A$$ hairs...etc..
This little "spanking" was well deserved, it (being the response I posted) wasn't appropriate, and for that I apologize. But for the above reasons, I had reached a certain amount of frustration, from my thread going from a question to "lectures" about what to post, what to ignore, and being told "not to worry about it".

Amwn1 then comes in with "upset.......you're delusional?," uhh, if that wasn't an uncalled for, I don't know what is. I'd like to say more on that, but I will restrain and refrain. Bottom line, it had nothing to do with my origional post in this thread.

If we can't post a legitimate question, without these kinds of responses, then maybe I have no business posting here. (humor, anecdotes, etc. ) being the exception. I would say to those who tell me not to worry about it, calling me delusional, etc., to take their own advice. If they don't like or agree with the subject matter of a thread, or just plain aren't interested with the content, then read another. I do it all the time.

With that said, I hope enough is enough. If all of you are in disagreement, heck take a vote, I'll leave the forum. In fact, this kind of garbage is exactly why I left other formum(s). I think that some of you who may know me from two other forums, might agree that I am not a "hostile" person, when I see a thread going "south", I generally run from that thread like a olympic sprinter, and can take (and give) good natured ribbing - I actually like that sort of thing, with the best of 'em.

sincerely,

J.

[NateS]

I see your point and have no agreements/disagreements either way....but if you leave the forum over what happened in this thread, then you have some seriously thin skin. I hope you don't leave as it's nice to have such a wide variety of people on the forum and I rarely see threads with confrontation on TPB. However, if you think that you should leave the forum, then by all means, but you don't need anybody else telling you to leave over this....that's your own personal issue to decide if you can handle the occasional thread like this one or not. If not, then forums in general might not be your ticket.

[jbylake]

I see your point and have no agreements/disagreements either way....but if you leave the forum over what happened in this thread, then you have some seriously thin skin. I hope you don't leave as it's nice to have such a wide variety of people on the forum and I rarely see threads with confrontation on TPB. However, if you think that you should leave the forum, then by all means, but you don't need anybody else telling you to leave over this....that's your own personal issue to decide if you can handle the occasional thread like this one or not. If not, then forums in general might not be your ticket.
No, Nate, has nothing to do with "thin skin", see PM.
As a matter of fact, it's about other (in my own personal opinion) about people who come into the middle of a thread, without reading any of it, and then "pushing" the issue. I would have been happy if nobody except mentos and antaritican and a couple more would have just responded.

You can read all about thin skin later.

Now,
Later........I wish some of the "heavy" hitters such as Hertz, Anti, and others, that have either critique or others, well, I would recommend that you read some of their responses.

Thsy are not jus shooting off one liners, take Hertz for example, (sorry Hertz for using you as an example, without your blessing)...they just give objective, or even subjective advice or opinon's...they don't call you delusinal, or otherwise, they just give informed opinion's.

J. the Not thin skinned poster....I take offense.....now a thread that I wanted to die, well, you can show me some of your skin....(explitive deleted)

J.:cheers:

[Walter]

...

Should I refrain from posting a shot of a rippling stream, without the "fuzz" effect, for fear of being ridiculed as "out of touch" or "old school"?

...



Probably.

It's all about risk you know.

-

[jbylake]

Probably.

It's all about risk you know.

-
asshole:cheers:

[Walter]

asshole:cheers:

Why, thank you. That's a badge of honor in my little group.

However, if you are 'fear' driven then you won't find out. Risk it- post some examples and study the reaction. That's about all there is to it.

-

[Chris of Arabia]

For the moment, I've locked this as we seem to be on something of a downward spiral here. I'm not going to start editing comments or issuing sanctions (of any kind), as this seems to me to be more of a communications issue than any sort of philosophical debate demanding entrenched positions. Given that this seems to be the first thread that's gone in any way off the rails, I'd like to take a couple of soundings, but with the first preference being that we get this ironed out and the thread can resume back with its original topic intact.