Water movement.

[Jleon99]

I controlled the speed to get soft look of the water, did it look right? C&C

[Donald]

Javier.

How much you slow shutter speed to give effect to flowing water is, I think, very much a matter of personal taste. As you know, there are some people who love the effect of very slow shutter speeds and others who dislike the effect, calling it 'fluffy water'.

1/25, as you have used, is quite fast in relative terms. You have created some movement, but still held detail of the fast flow. I have shot flowing water in a river at 1/8 and liked the effect that it gives. Of course, it also all depends on how fast the water is flowing!

In your picture, if you had wanted the surface of the water in the foreground to appear much smoother than it is, then you would have had to use a much slower shutter speed.

In general compositional terms, I wonder if you picture would again benefit from you getting in closer, so that the rocks at the bottom were eliminated and the attention was much more on the flowing water rather than the landscape around it?

[Geoff F]

I'm one of those people who likes to see water (or surf) moving at it's natural speed, or rather close to it. But milky looking blurred water seems to be the modern style.

Like Donald, I would like to see the rocks at the bottom cropped out. Or alternatively, I think that showing more of them would work.

The lower rocks look a bit flat while the upper ones are a touch overexposed in places, so I would like to equalise that a bit more.

But these are just rather minor points and the general composition and focus works well.

[Jleon99]

I'm one of those people who likes to see water (or surf) moving at it's natural speed, or rather close to it. But milky looking blurred water seems to be the modern style.

Like Donald, I would like to see the rocks at the bottom cropped out. Or alternatively, I think that showing more of them would work.

The lower rocks look a bit flat while the upper ones are a touch overexposed in places, so I would like to equalise that a bit more.

But these are just rather minor points and the general composition and focus works well.

Let see; if understood correctly. here is (1/25) because it was taken without trypode



Open to more C&C...

[Nass]

Hello Javier,

You've done it right, yes, but it is a bit in between freezing the action and the soft blurry waterfall shot. Donald is spot on, it rather depends on the speed of the water; if the water moves fast then you run the danger of the whites being just white rather than having a little bit of definition in them. So quite often what people do is a 1, 2 or even 4 second exposure, but with a ND filter or a Polariser (or both). That smoothes out the waterflow itself but also gives you a bit of detail/variation in the whites of the water.

[Geoff F]

That crop certainly looks a lot better to me, Javier.

[spngr311]

I'd crop it lower so you get rid of the building behind it. Also, if you are going for more flowing water, get a tripod or something to put the camera on so you can slow the shutter speed. That is a cool spot to get flowing water, it looks like a good spot to experiment and practice!