Water: long or short exposure?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Quarkcharmed
Quarkcharmed Contributing Member • Posts: 654
Water: long or short exposure?
7

Which one do you like the most (if any)?

0.6s and 30s exposures respectively. The second one is taken closer to the blue hour and it would be difficult to actually make it shorter.

This thread is more to discuss your preferable approach to capturing the water movement, but CC is welcome and will be appreciated.

Cathedral Rocks

Cathedral Rocks

 Quarkcharmed's gear list:Quarkcharmed's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,733
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
14

The water in both of them is great.  But I do prefer the first shot.

In the first photo, the shutter speed is such that it provides detail and a sense of action and motion.  And I prefer the color.

In the second photo the water is great, a more peaceful and mysterious aura.  But the color isn't as inspiring, and I think the shadows are lifted too much on some of the rocks.

Thanks for sharing that scene, wish I was there right now!

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II +2 more
Quarkcharmed
OP Quarkcharmed Contributing Member • Posts: 654
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

Bobthearch wrote:

The water in both of them is great. But I do prefer the first shot.

In the first photo, the shutter speed is such that it provides detail and a sense of action and motion. And I prefer the color.

In the second photo the water is great, a more peaceful and mysterious aura. But the color isn't as inspiring, and I think the shadows are lifted too much on some of the rocks.

Thanks for sharing that scene, wish I was there right now!

Thank you!

Yeah the second one is more gloomy and also less contrasty, the relative brightness between #1 and #2 isn't how it was in reality.

 Quarkcharmed's gear list:Quarkcharmed's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
Lan Senior Member • Posts: 2,343
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
1

I prefer the sky in the first shot, and the water in the second shot. I might be tempted to overlay one on top of the other and experiment with different opacities and blend modes?

Scott Milso Senior Member • Posts: 1,099
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
1

Quarkcharmed wrote:

Which one do you like the most (if any)?

0.6s and 30s exposures respectively. The second one is taken closer to the blue hour and it would be difficult to actually make it shorter.

This thread is more to discuss your preferable approach to capturing the water movement, but CC is welcome and will be appreciated.

Cathedral Rocks

Cathedral Rocks

It really depends on the mood you're after.  To me they have completely different moods and they're both excellent.   Personally,  I like the first one best.

Gary from Seattle Veteran Member • Posts: 5,154
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
1

The first image is much more dynamic. I find the second rather blah; just dark blues and shades of dark gray and black.

 Gary from Seattle's gear list:Gary from Seattle's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +4 more
Bing Chow Senior Member • Posts: 2,293
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

The second. Not even close. I don't like the detail in the water in the first shot. Looks messy and crunchy. Not saying all water must be milky and silky. It can be dynamic and powerful, but the water in the first shot isn't that.

lost alaskan
lost alaskan Senior Member • Posts: 1,562
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

First one. Shows some activity. You could spend some time viewing that scene. The second, just another long exposure. Although I do like the slightly brighter rocks on the left in #2 but with the same color as 1. I understand it was the blue hour. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'd have lifted the shadows a tad in #1.

 lost alaskan's gear list:lost alaskan's gear list
Sony a6300 Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
Graham Meale
Graham Meale Veteran Member • Posts: 3,199
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

My preference with moving water is to use either a very slow or very fast shutter, not something in between. The latter provides an "arty" effect if that's what one desires (and by the way I seldom do), whereas the other "freezes" the motion.

-- hide signature --
 Graham Meale's gear list:Graham Meale's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM +7 more
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,733
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
1

Quarkcharmed wrote:

Bobthearch wrote:

The water in both of them is great. But I do prefer the first shot.

In the first photo, the shutter speed is such that it provides detail and a sense of action and motion. And I prefer the color.

In the second photo the water is great, a more peaceful and mysterious aura. But the color isn't as inspiring, and I think the shadows are lifted too much on some of the rocks.

Thanks for sharing that scene, wish I was there right now!

Thank you!

Yeah the second one is more gloomy and also less contrasty, the relative brightness between #1 and #2 isn't how it was in reality.

If it were me I'd revisit the second photo, darken it, and see what it looked like in black and white.  Maybe emphasize the shapes and misty water over the color.

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II +2 more
Fotozone Regular Member • Posts: 177
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
2

This is much about personal taste. Having said that I prefer the first image. I like the sky and the water effects. The second image is too gloomy and dark.

 Fotozone's gear list:Fotozone's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Sony a6600 Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS +7 more
Bobthearch
Bobthearch Veteran Member • Posts: 9,733
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
1

Fotozone wrote:

This is much about personal taste. Having said that I prefer the first image. I like the sky and the water effects. The second image is too gloomy and dark.

Funny you say that.  I would 'fix' the second photo by re-developing it to look moregloomy and dark. 

-- hide signature --

Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 Bobthearch's gear list:Bobthearch's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II +2 more
Fotozone Regular Member • Posts: 177
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

Bobthearch wrote:

Fotozone wrote:

This is much about personal taste. Having said that I prefer the first image. I like the sky and the water effects. The second image is too gloomy and dark.

Funny you say that. I would 'fix' the second photo by re-developing it to look moregloomy and dark.

Just personal taste.

 Fotozone's gear list:Fotozone's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony a7R III Sony a7 III Sony a6600 Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS +7 more
lost alaskan
lost alaskan Senior Member • Posts: 1,562
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

Dark and gloomy is good. The original isn't all sunshine either. But the water pouring over the foreground rocks which is missing in the second shot(the rocks seem missing as well) leaves me wanting(always wanted to say that).

 lost alaskan's gear list:lost alaskan's gear list
Sony a6300 Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +2 more
akustykmagmanetpl Senior Member • Posts: 1,295
short exposure, with some WB adjustment
1

personally, I'm quite bored with the mindless abuse of ND1000 filters that got so common in the last 5 years.

both are good photos, but normal exposure has higher impact because it retains the natural drama of the scene (water and clouds) which ND1000 steamrolls by smoothing out those harsh edges that this scenery requires.

sidenote: I think it could be a little colder WB with (at least on my screen) some push to magenta (water but especially clouds could use a little more pinkish cast).

other than that: beautiful scene, lovely conditions and neatly composed. well done!

Which one do you like the most (if any)?

0.6s and 30s exposures respectively. The second one is taken closer to the blue hour and it would be difficult to actually make it shorter.

This thread is more to discuss your preferable approach to capturing the water movement, but CC is welcome and will be appreciated.

Cathedral Rocks

Cathedral Rocks

 akustykmagmanetpl's gear list:akustykmagmanetpl's gear list
Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS 70D Canon 6D Mark II Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +8 more
kodakrome
kodakrome Contributing Member • Posts: 838
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

Very nice shot.

Definitely the first one for both the sky and water. I've never liked those extra long water exposures because then it doesn't look like water. It looks more like foam or cotton candy.

Only thing I would do on the first one is lift the shadows a bit with the rocks, which seem a little too dark to me.

jkjond
jkjond Veteran Member • Posts: 9,965
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
2

As displayed, the first is grabbing me more. I'm wanting to like the LE more than I do, but it isn't drawing me in. The biggest problem with the LE is timing - the sky shapes and surf of the foreground rocks being much more interesting in the first.

I think they both need a lot more processing.

Much as I like the sky shapes in the first it feels too tightly cropped at the top. There's a frustrating incompleteness to the gap in the clouds as it runs off into the frame. Processing isn't going to change that directly, though making more of the foreground will reduce the role of the sky so make it less apparent. There's so much scrummy rich detail that you've hidden in the rocks, and the patterns in the foam flowing over the outcrop is underplayed.

The LE, the sky isn't that interesting when compared to the first, which is a huge loss. But there is a lot of detail to be had in the foreground. As with the first shot, developing the foreground will play down the role of the sky and maximise the good part. It's the same with all shots, make the most of the good bits, play down the frustrations.

I don't know what your take is on reprocessing other people's work on here? I'm convinced both versions have a lot to gain, more so the long exposure, which goes some way to bridging the gap between the two. Oooh, and there's a good black and white lurking in there

-- hide signature --

Wedding and fine art photographer https://johnleechstudio.smugmug.com
You are welcome to reprocess and repost my pics on DPR.

Quarkcharmed
OP Quarkcharmed Contributing Member • Posts: 654
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

Lan wrote:

I prefer the sky in the first shot, and the water in the second shot. I might be tempted to overlay one on top of the other and experiment with different opacities and blend modes?

Thanks! That's an interesting idea. Might have issues with matching the colours but maybe I'll try and see if they're blendable.

 Quarkcharmed's gear list:Quarkcharmed's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
Quarkcharmed
OP Quarkcharmed Contributing Member • Posts: 654
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

Scott Milso wrote:

Quarkcharmed wrote:

Which one do you like the most (if any)?

0.6s and 30s exposures respectively. The second one is taken closer to the blue hour and it would be difficult to actually make it shorter.

This thread is more to discuss your preferable approach to capturing the water movement, but CC is welcome and will be appreciated.

Cathedral Rocks

Cathedral Rocks

It really depends on the mood you're after. To me they have completely different moods and they're both excellent. Personally, I like the first one best.

Thanks! #1 is my favourite too, that why I put it first. It conveys the mood and atmosphere better to me. #2 is quite a departure from his this place feels like but most of the viewers have never been there and don't really care

 Quarkcharmed's gear list:Quarkcharmed's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
Quarkcharmed
OP Quarkcharmed Contributing Member • Posts: 654
Re: Water: long or short exposure?

lost alaskan wrote:

Dark and gloomy is good. The original isn't all sunshine either. But the water pouring over the foreground rocks which is missing in the second shot(the rocks seem missing as well) leaves me wanting(always wanted to say that).

Thanks! Yeah the shots like #1 take a number of attempts to get with these cascades of water.

The rocks should be the same though, I didn't remove any rocks in postprocessing and the tide was roughly the same level.

 Quarkcharmed's gear list:Quarkcharmed's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads