Moving water experiment

As I was rummaging through my tailings pile for moving water images, I ran across an incomplete experiment: two (quite old) images of the same scene, one shot with a slow shutter and one with a relatively fast shutter. I had intended to try sandwiching them in the enlarger and printing them, but never got around to it. So tonight I (roughly) completed the experiment in the computer, combining the images using a "multiply" operand, then burning, dodging, and sharpening. I find the effect interesting and promising so I thought I would share it with you good folks.

Have any of you experimented with this technique?

I haven't tried this, but it looks like the faster shutter speed has mostly taken over the slower speed, as that's what seems much more dominant to me. If you hadn't mentioned this as a blend, I don't think I would've noticed. But it's a cool technique worth experimenting with, for sure.

Todd, I agree that the fast shutter appears dominant. After blending and adjusting I did not compare the result with the originals, so maybe there's not a big difference between this and the fast original. Perhaps tonight I can post the original images so you can see how they each differ from the blend, and even experiment with the blend yourself if you want.

My objective (and as I mentioned this is a quick-and-dirty first go) was to get a natural look that conveys both the "wave and particle" aspects of flowing water. A single medium-slow shutter speed exposure usually compromises both aspects, in my experience. I did try to assure, through adjustment of both the originals and the blended image, that the sparkles stood out, because I found that if they are too transparent the image contrast suffers, taking on the appearance of a double-exposure. I'm encouraged that you didn't immediately perceive it as a blend. Thanks for looking and commenting! -Don

Don, I think this is an interesting experiment to continue to work on. I would guess you would need to lean towards the sharper side with some soft elements rather than a even or primarily soft image with sharp elements. Maybe that would be important only to other photographers, but I think the image would look too processed or like an unusual double expsoure if it leaned towards long exposures.

I was thinking the same exact thing as Todd. While I work on getting that fixed ( ) I'll be completely unoriginal and also agree with Steve. I think different subject matter incorporating a variety of elements would work. It sounds a lot like the "orton" effect, which seems to work well with grasses, trees, etc. I think you need something more delicate to show off both the sharp and soft rendering.

Thanks for your comments, Steve and Rick. Now I will look up "orton effect".

I have finally looked back at the original fast exposure to compare with the blend, and as you can see there really is a big difference. This is a raw downsample of the scan, no adjustments. Following will be a raw downsample of the slow exposure. Please feel free to copy and play with them if you are so inclined, and post your own results if you wish.

Here's the slow exposure. As I look more closely, I have to believe it is itself a double exposure, or else where did the poised droplets come from?