The Milky Silky Look

I hope that Marry Dennis doesn’t mind that I’m stealing the question she raised in a comment on Guy Tal’s last post (Winter Narrows) or that I mention her name here, but I wanted to get some input from a variety of people on your preferences when it comes to motion blur. Is the act of letting water go smooth with a long shutter speed a conscious decision you make, or has it become the only comfortable/acceptable approach these days? And what about other instances where motion blur creeps into our photos; is it better for water to blur than grasses/flowers blowing in the wind? For those with more experience in Avian/Fauna than me, are motion blurred wingtips or legs or backgrounds a plus or a big minus?

It’s my understanding that in the past, the landscape photographers had little choice in the matter because of how slowly their film exposed, the super high f/stops dof required, and so on. In many cases these days, a photographer will add filters (ND or Polarizing) to allow more time for water to blur. What’s your choice, and what are your reasons (aesthetic or otherwise) for making that choice?

I’ll weigh in after I decide whether my own reasons are any good.

It’s my understanding that in the past, the landscape photographers had little choice in the matter because of how slowly their film exposed, the super high f/stops dof required, and so on.

I try to stay away from photographing water, but the above is certainly still the case, Kent, especially for LF photographers. An aperture of f45 and a film speed of 100 is a common recipe for fuzzy water when the sun is not directly overhead or directly lighting the subject. The only choice is to give up DOF to freeze the water motion, or push the film to get a faster shutter speed. A push of 1-stop is often not going to be helpful.

The correct answer is: "It depends."

I have used polarizer and ND filter to slow down the shutter speed to blur water. I also have use fast shutterspeed to sharply freeze the motion. In the area where I live, there are no water falles or babbling brooks, but we do have surf. A loooong exposure (5 to 30 seconds) gives an ethereal look that I find appealing, for example of waves washing over diftwood on a beach.

For birds, I prefer sharp. Good blurred motion pictures of birds in flight areaa rarity, IMO, but occasionally one sees one that is a knock-out.

In my book I don't know that there's a single answer. As a film shooter until very recently, and sometimes LF shooter, you're right. The choices were limited. Over the summer with my new found digital, did a fair amount of landscape experimenting were I could adjust the ISOs and still maintain some decent DOF. The faster shutter speeds spoke of action and lively water and the slower spoke more of serenity or a softer mood. (with wildlife or flowers, maybe the opposite?) Rather than one being right or wrong, it opened up a new way to have some artistic expression. That said, I think active water is very generally most pleasing as more of a happy medium where there is some definition to the water texture, but still some blur and softness. Probably just slightly faster than I'd grown accustomed to with film. As pixels are more conenient to experiment with than film, I'd suggest each scene can indicate a few water perspectives worth trying.

People have been making the silky water photos like that for 150 years. I see it as the original cliche, and work very hard to avoid it at all cost most of the time. I love to photo waterfalls, but I want my photos to look different. I try to capture the cat-like litheness of the water. I just don't want to be doing the same-o same-o.


Kent in Chicago

I think photographing moving/running water is hard because of the difficulty associated with determining the amount of motion blur that one wants to go with. The way I see it, some amount of blurring is always needed, otherwise the resulting image has a "super reality" look about it, which is also unnatural. Your recent work with waves (the 1st photo in particular) is an example of this. Another would be the coastal photos by Marc Adamus. They have frozen wave motion and the resulting look is something that one cannot see with their naked eye. Don't get me wrong, I like the effect and when used with proper judement (like Marc and you have shown) can result in wonderful interpretive work. My main point here though is that completely freezing the motion of running water is one way to depart from a natural look and feel. The other, of course, is going with a very long exposure and the resulting fuzzy-wuzzy look.

I honestly never know till later, once I get home and stare at my images for a while. As a result, I usually try very hard to "bracket" the effect any time I shoot. My thinking is that as long as I'm there and conditions are right, why not. I do acknowledge and respond to the fact that tastes vary widely on this effect, and in fact my approach in shooting it allows me to be more flexible in meetin a potential client's needs. Pure pragmatism invading "art."

I will go so far as stacking my polarizer with a 2-stop ND filter on bright days. There's an added bonus to this approach on muddy rivers. Often you can still manage to "dial out" the mud and find a reflection of sky or whatever if the light angle is right. That can still be a little obscure on a moving river, but so long as there's no whitewater, adding the ND to really slow down the shutter speed "flattens" the river and makes the reflections more prominent, if still blurry. Not a perfect world, but it beats the stuffings out of muddy rivers when everything else is right.

"resulting fuzzy-wuzzy look"

Forgive me, but I just can't help myself...

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wuz a Bear, Fuzzy-Wuzzy had no hair. Fuzzy-Wuzzy, wuzn't fuzzy, wuz he.

-PB

What moves in a still photo? Nothing moves in a still photo that's why they call it still, but what moves in the real world? Lots of things do, and water is a repeat offender if there ever was one. Even when I'm very attentive to the details in a crashing wave and I'm able to pick up on the same detail I would see in a photo with a shutter speed of 1/100th sec or faster, I'm still conscious of the fact that the water in the wave is moving incredibly fast. But as we've seen many times, our brains do not process pictures in the same way they do for our surroundings. When I see a picture of a car where the wheels are tack sharp I feel like the car is stationary even if I can see that it's in the middle of a formula 1 race. Why does motion blur in a photograph give a sensation of movement? It's learned from real life; just wave your hand back and forth if you want to see some motion blur. This is one of my reasons for using longer shutter speeds when I photograph things that are moving; I want them to look like they're moving.

Preston, it's amazing how often that rhyme come to my mind, and I can't really figure out why.

As M.G. said, when working with a large format camera, more often than not there isn't a choice. One thing I look for to counter this, is instances where the smoothing becomes a distinct compositional point of interest. More often than not, this happens to be shallow area's of water where there isn't a high volume of flow. In instances where I perceive a sense of "power" in the water, I do everything on my end to convey that in the final image. In other words, I think some judgment is beneficial as not all situations are equal. I also believe it's limiting to construct generic "rules" that govern what we should and shouldn't be doing in the field. It seems to me that there is a time for everything.

My shutter speeds for coastal emages are creative decisions. My Freycinet series was about creating a fantasy world with surreal images, many photos taken in very low light, very long exposures, this often resulted in unusual colour palettes especially in the water. My current project is the Great Ocean Road, I want to project majesty & power of this region, so I use faster shutter speed to show the water flowing and formation of the waves.

Frankly, blurred water is so overdone that I avoid it at all costs. Since I don't shoot large format it is easier for me to select a shutter speed that creates a combination of blur + sharp details that I find more pleasing. Just MHO, my friends.

I also try to avoid blurry water just for the sake of it. I like to juxtapose it with something sharp.

That's just IMHO. Or, should I say, IMH2O?

"IMH2O" - translated means "in my water"

I like that, Steve, as there is surely something different in every photographer's water, which can make a difference in the way they choose to present it.

Tom, living where you do, it's not too difficult to avoid water of any kind. Just kidding and thanks for your input.

I agree with Buck's answer - "it depends". I like it both ways, but more often than not shoot it blurred. Reasons are two-fold - I shoot digital, not LF, but I still shoot mostly in early morning/late afternoon and closed down to f/11 or more so longer shutter speeds are generally a given. The second reason is that people who buy the prints seem to like the blurred effect more.

Personally, I like silky smooth looking water. I find the frozen look from a fast shutter speed less natural and less appealing.

There is a third approach to shooting moving water using multiple exposures. I read about it once but haven't tried it yet. It sounds and looks interesting.

Set up a shot of a waterfall, for example, in such a way that you will need a long exposure. Divide your shutter speed by five or six or some convient number and make that many exposures on the same frame. For example, if you need 1.5 seconds to get the proper exposure then you could make six exposures at 1/4 second on the same frame.

The point is to build up multiple layers of stopped action - each one will be slightly different. This gives a look somewhere in between continuous motion blur and frozen action. It can also increase the appearent volume of water. Obviously, you will need a sturdy tripod, unchanging light, and no wind.

Cheers,

Hi Kent ......great topic, glad you brought it up. A year or two ago my answer would probably been quite different, but know IMO this is really a personal preference and more often than not, dictated by the both the moment and the desired effect of the photographer. I for one enjoy seeing the power of water, rapids in a river, big waves etc. I've come to like the effect of long shutter speeds on water in certain circumstances but not always. I hope there is never a rule that suggests that we must shoot water in only one way. Just my opinion.

For me, it's very simple. I take several shots at different shutter speeds and determine what LOOKS BEST to me and what conveys best what i was intending.
Purely a matter of my preference - while i care about others feel, what I want to picture and present is my bottom line. I don't care much what is "supposed" to be or what the books "say." or what is "commonly accepted."

In Oregon, it would be difficlut not to photograph waterfalls, so this is a question to consider often.

Sandy

I use a Singh-Ray Vari ND to gain eight stops or better. I have found that minimal water flow or small falls look good slow but I often freeze big energy water to highten the felt power of the water. You have to stand in the water and let it speak to you! Then make your setting be so.
Tom

For what it's worth my wife hates any "fuzzy water" image. Personally I judge a technique by how well it works in the overall composition and theme of the image. Sometimes it works well, other times not. Many times however, it's about making a compromise.

Guy

Kent, I'm glad you brought this to the discussion forum and no problem about "stealing the question." I guess what it boils down to for me is that the fuzzy water image becomes so much about the technique used that it's sometimes, for me, hard to get past that and notice all the other good things in the frame. More often than not that silky effect ruins a perfectly good image in my opinion. I understand the technical compromises required and maybe that's why I just avoid those situations altogether! I can't see ever changing my opinion about this though. I just don't like the look.

I think it depends entirely on the subject matter and the feeling you want to portray. I like the "fuzzy wuzzy" look on waterfalls, or where I feel there should be a sense of tranquility. I find that I like extremely blurred water less and less lately though, and prefer a little bit of texture in the water at least. If you want to portray a powerful energetic feeling, then freeze the action in the water a little more, such as in a wave breaking on the shore. I think the best thing to do is experiment and shoot your subject at several shutter speeds and find out what works best. I think the important thing is to make a conscious choice though, not just blur the water because that's what you're "supposed" to do.

Kent,I think it boils down to what one is trying to portray. For example, 'fuzzy' water can help to accentuate other elements in a scene that otherwise might be overwhelmed by 'frozen' action. So, it seems to me that we must carefully visualize the ideas, or emotions we wish to portray and then apply our skills and tools to meet that vision.

Since I shoot primarily 4x5, and have a love for water, I try to visualize how the 'fuzzy' water will look and will then adjust camera position, or use view camera movements to achieve the look I want. Sometimes I can't make it work, so I move on.

-PB

I would like to add some to what Preston brought up. I'm usually not basing my choice of shutter speed for rendering moving water on anything other than the aesthetic impact I believe it will have on my photo. Especially lively water is extremely high in contrast, and the faster the shutter speed used, the more detailed contrasts are included. Since high contrast is one of the things (if not the very thing) that first attracts attention in a picture, the choice usually comes down to where I want viewers' attention to be focused. I have a few photos where water is absolutely the most important idea included (or at least the primary reason I made the photo), and in those I've chosen shutter speeds that render all that eye-catching detail in the water. On the other end, the majority of my photographs that include water have other elements of equal or greater importance, and detail/contrast rich water would constantly be drawing attention away from the reason I created the picture in the first place.

Great points Preston and Kent.

I want to go back to something I said earlier, because I think it's important yet easy to overlook.

While the talk here has focused on white water in rapids and falls, water comes in many more forms. Most "still" water isn't. There's subtle to strong movement on flat rivers and sometimes on lakes, ponds and oceans. Most of us don't even think about shutter speed with these, yet it can be an important choice aesthetically and even a tool for dealing with difficult situations as I cited in my example of a muddy river.

The next time you are shooting on a "still" river, try stretching your exposure and watch the reflections start to jump out at you. Yes, you lose detail in the surface itself, but reflections can be sharpened and made more prominent. As with white water there's a fine line between enough and too much, so bracketing shutter speeds is very much in order. That's why I carry screw-in plain ND filters- They allow me to manipulate SS even when DOF and aperture are critical.

It is another tool to use to convey a mood.I usually go fuzzy for streams that are lower in water volume and go faster in big falls to convey the power felt being there in person. Also for lakes on windy days it is a tool for making reflections either sharper or more foil looking depending on how you use it:-)

I'll post a contrary opinion to much of what's been posted here. I rarely find that the frozen-motion effect works for me, when it comes to moving water. I usually find that some degree of moderate blur works best, and the rest of the time I go even longer. I think this is because the blurred motion smooths out what are, to me, distracting blobs, jags, zigs and zags, of moving water. The result comes closer to approximating what I see, when I first study the scene with the naked eye and find it appealing to me. The volume of water really doesn't make much difference in this perception and preference, to me.

Its a good things everyone's tastes aren't the same, or it would be a rather boring world, wouldn't it?

Scott

Kent/all,

Great topic Kent, I'll see if I can add my .02.

For starters, what has always bothered me when reading magazine articles is when the author or photographer says something like: "the photographer chose a long shutter speed to create a feeling of motion....." or whatever. When in most cases (as with Guy's recent Narrows image) it's really more of a technical practicality of available light, film/sensor speed and depth of field. In other words, silky water isn't necessarily chosen, aperture is chosen. Now having said that, there is certainly choices of creativity in how much will be blurred and I'm not saying that photographers don't or can't choose silky water, it's just that in most cases, it's not if water will be silky, blur or fuzzy... but how much - that's where the creative photographer has some control.

I agree with most who have said, "It depends." Every photographic situation requires some thought on how the photographer wants to present the scene for their viewers, or themselves.
Personally, I LOVE water that shows motion, shows form and invokes emotions, moods. I love coastal shots at dawn/dusk where the waves flatten out into a sea of mist. I LOVE isolated scenes of flowing water where reflecting colors mold around a flowing wave.

IMHO, by "avoiding" silky, blurred water images, folks are just removing a photographic tool from their photographic toolbox. As creative artists (and we photographer's are) should be constantly learning, growing and be able to adapt to the various photographic situations we either put ourselves in, or find ourselves in. Is Yosemite a cliche because it's over photographed? How about Zion, the slot canyons, Death Valley? the list is endless. Just because we've seen countless images of silky white streams in the Smokies or the Cascades, shouldn't stop anyone from capturing a beautiful scene in nature.

A brief story, then I'll stop. Years ago I was on a photo trip with a camera club. We had come across a beautiful winter scene with hoar frost, cat tails, a frozen river... and fog. Many of us photographing the same scene. One person, refused to shoot this beautiful scene and I asked him why not. He said that everyone will have it, why should I? I don't want the same thing as everyone else. Good point, I commend him for wanting to seek out the unique. However, consider this. Fifteen years later, I still have the print hanging on my wall and the original slide in my files. He doesn't.

Lon

I'd like to say a big thank you to everyone who has weighed in on this topic so far, and at the risk of keeping this thread running too long, I would like to offer a shift in the focus. We've shared varying opinions and arguments with regard to motion in water, but what about motion in other elements. Buck gave some input on flying birds, and that was interesting to me even though I almost never work in the avian realm of photography.

Just like with water, circumstances often dictate whether we're able to avoid motion blur in other subjects like flowers and trees. I get the feeling, though, that photographers are almost always trying to avoid having those elements blur. I know that I've spent great lengths of time with the camera set up and waiting/praying that the wind will stop long enough to render foreground flowers perfectly sharp, and the picture would have been a disappointment if they were blurry. Then I've also seen photos by some members here that include obviously blurred plants that don't detract at all and even enhance the feelings of the picture.

Here's a link to one of my favorite and earliest successful images that includes a great deal of motion blur. Can motion blur of this kind ever work for you, and if it can, what does it take to make it work? Have you ever tried zoom blur or panning with a moving subject and low shutter speeds?

http://tkmphoto.com/perseverance.html

I'm also using 5x4, and more often than not, I also use method that Mr. Stahlke was talking about. I worked out this technique on 35 mm, and compared and experimented a lot. In the end I found that I prefer more details produced with this technique. But in general, yes it depends. On lakes, I would use 10 stop ND filter to tame down ripples and to bring out reflection. Blurred clouds are just another benefit. In clouds I really like motion blur, probably because there aren't many photos floating around with blurred clouds.

It's interesting to look at contemporary avian photography. It's almost a sin to include motion blur in wing tips. But as it was pointed out, blur in photos means movement to our mind and to my eye frozen bird in mid air looks odd at least.

One thing that I find odd about photographers is, that they would like to be different sometimes just for the sake of being different. My approach is that if something works, it works. Like portrait: it's known, that people (and women in particular) prefer smooth skin in their photos. So for the sake of being different, would you try to photograph woman with razor sharp lens with two miles of DOF that will record every single imperfection? I guess no.

Marko

I look at it like this, in no way shape or form does "silky water" or fuzzy, or whatever you want to call it, ruin an image. Lets slow things down just a bit; (no pun intended) In your eyes, you are seeing motion, that motion is flowing fast and powerful, and if you take just a second to realize, it's actually smooth in the first place. Yes, of course it has power, and details, in which you can see and feel. But I think it comes down to personal preference, and of course what you are photographing. Sometimes it may work, other times it may not. A roaring river with cascades, and classV rapids with a rafter going down, you may want to freeze that to show the action. Waves crashing rocks near the shore, you may want to freeze to show the action. Now, one thing I will not compromise my dof, just to freeze water. Now, in some situations, you will never get details, take a look at my recent post "Moonlit Patriarch", if you are doing a 2, 3, or 5 minute exposure, you will never get detail, unless you want to shoot at iso1600 or 3200!, and why would you want some grainy image, just to freeze details in the water. It comes down to the image, but one thing for sure, 98% of the people whom have purchased any waterscapes from me, love the silkiness of the water, compared to shots with the water frozen. It's about the image, and if the image calls for freezing the motion, then freeze it, ie; waves hitting rocks upon the shore, cascades, big powerful energetic falls, etc. But, for me, I see the water as smooth in the first place, just because it is powerful, strong, and flowing fast, does not mean it's not actually smooth. It does not have sharp angles, it flows...

Now this is just water for me, other things can convey a different message, ie, blowing leaves on a tree, birds in flight, you can do either, freeze them, or convey the movement.