I'm not keen on milky water, but ...

[billtils]

... thought it was probably long past the time to at least try it.


This is the one that set things off. The intent was a few autumn colours shots but the best of the show was gone and recent rains made the river a bit more vigorous than I wanted when it came to wading out, so tried to make a silk purse from a sow's ear (UK) or lemonade from lemons (US). It is a smallish river near home (The River Kraik).




Somewhat emboldened, this was followed by a couple of waterfalls. The first is the Falls of Falloch and the second Bracklinn Falls.

[Manfred M]

I would phrase things slightly differently by suggesting I don't always like the results of long exposure water, but that tends to be when it is really overdone and the result is a textureless mass.. This generally happens when photographers with limited understanding seem to think that "more is better" and go crazy in circumstances where a more experienced photographer would handle the scene with more finesse.

In general, you have done this well in these scenes. The effect works and enhances the scenes. My only quibble might be with the last image, where I would probably crop just above the small waterfall along the bottom. That part gets my attention a bit too much.

[billtils]

Thanks Manfred.

I tend to agree with you on the last one, but the judge at a recent inter-club competition was very keen on images having something at the bottom to ground them. Perhaps either "quieten" the white or go in the opposite direction and include more.

[DanK]

Nice images. I am not troubled by smooth water. IMHO, it's fine if it isn't overdone and contributes to the visual image you want.

I think #3 is the most interesting and #1 the least. In the case of #3: I personally like the little rapids at the bottom. They provide a nice anchor. I however, I think the image lacks contrast. I would brighten the shadows a bit, impose a curve to increase contrast (while anchoring the brights so that they aren't further brightened), and add a little local contrast. A very quick-and-dirty yielded this:



I'd crop the second a little from the bottom and a lot from the top, maybe something like this:

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred.

I tend to agree with you on the last one, but the judge at a recent inter-club competition was very keen on images having something at the bottom to ground them. Perhaps either "quieten" the white or go in the opposite direction and include more.

In my view, cropping there would still give you a very solid foundation for the image, especially with the two rocks on both sides acting as anchors.

That being said, I have been at competitions and judged at competitions where there is strong disagreements between the judges (CAPA rules competitions tend to use juries of three judges). I'm just finishing up doing some online judging for one of the local photo clubs right now and look forward to a week Tuesday to see how the other judges have scored and commented.

[billtils]

Nice images. I am not troubled by smooth water. IMHO, it's fine if it isn't overdone and contributes to the visual image you want.

I think #3 is the most interesting and #1 the least. In the case of #3: I personally like the little rapids at the bottom. They provide a nice anchor. I however, I think the image lacks contrast. I would brighten the shadows a bit, impose a curve to increase contrast (while anchoring the brights so that they aren't further brightened), and add a little local contrast. A very quick-and-dirty yielded this:



I'd crop the second a little from the bottom and a lot from the top, maybe something like this:

Thanks Dan

Yes, the river is by far the leas interesting of the three but was more trouble to get than the other two, so a bit of personal experience there .

I like what you did with the second - that slight crop makes a big difference. As far as the third one goes, I can see where you are going with those edits but I like the peaty, brown, water and avoided edits that diminished that colouring. However you've set me an interesting task for the coming days to see if I can go towards your approach but not lose the brown water.

[DanK]

As far as the third one goes, I can see where you are going with those edits but I like the peaty, brown, water and avoided edits that diminished that colouring. However you've set me an interesting task for the coming days to see if I can go towards your approach but not lose the brown water.

I think that could be done with a little brush work. The local contrast was applied to a merged layer at the top. I attached a white mask and then painted black over the water to undo those effects on the water. I think burned the water. Quick and dirty, but it is moving in that direction, I think:

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[MrB]

When I look into this type of photo, I want to feel a strong impression of the movement, power, and sound of the water. But for me, as the exposure time increases, those effects tend to decrease, with the latter being affected significantly. For example, in the second photo I want to feel as though I am hearing the roar of the falling water, but the milkiness is like wearing ear-defenders.

Philip

[billtils]

When I look into this type of photo, I want to feel a strong impression of the movement, power, and sound of the water.
Philip

Perhaps this is more aligned to your taste Phillip?

[Manfred M]

When I look into this type of photo, I want to feel a strong impression of the movement, power, and sound of the water. But for me, as the exposure time increases, those effects tend to decrease, with the latter being affected significantly. For example, in the second photo I want to feel as though I am hearing the roar of the falling water, but the milkiness is like wearing ear-defenders.

Philip

This is a topic, alongside HDRI, sunsets and partial colourization that were discussed at the National judging course I took a couple of years ago. The instructor's view was enlightening.

His point was that photographic judges have to park their prejudices and dislikes and learn to look at an image purely on its merits. Does the image work well or not. It doesn't matter if the subject matter is something you have a strong opinion on; some people are scared of spiders or strongly dislike nudes, but that should not take away from looking at an image objectively.

The issue he mentioned was that smoothed water, HDRI and partial colourization can be very effective techniques, but a lot of people who are not good photographers started using them. They seemed to think adding a gimmick to a mediocre image would suddenly turn it into a great image. How wrong they were.... Unfortunately, this also resulted in these techniques getting a "bad rap" which means a lot of very good photographers avoid them.

I have seen award winning images using all of these techniques. The common thread is that these were stunning images and these techniques simply took them to the next level.

I've also seen judges criticize images like the one Bill posted in #10 as it did not portray the power and motion of the water adequately. It is very challenging to portray a moving 3D object as a still 2D image.

[MrB]

Manfred, I agree with your last sentence. As for the rest, my comments in Post #9 were quite deliberately subjective. I am not a photographic judge, and when I look into a photo I'm interested in what it does for me. More often than not, milky water destroys the sensory experience of the water for me.

Bill, with regard to the three points I raised in Post #9 (movement, power, and sound) your suggestion is correct - your image in Post #10 works better for me in my sensory imagination of the scene, thank you!

Philip