# Slow or no?



## SquarePeg (Aug 24, 2019)

Which do you prefer?  Also c&c welcome.  

This is Sabbaday Falls a very popular spot off the Kancamagus Hwy in the NH White Mountains which is one of my all time favorite places to be.  These were hand held no Nd filter, Xt2 with the 18-55 at 21mm.  The slow shutter was a 1 sec exposure at f/22, ISO 320.  The other was at 1.500, f/4.5, ISO 4000

Slow



Sabbaday by SharonCat..., on Flickr

No



Filling the pool by SharonCat..., on Flickr


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Aug 24, 2019)

Both nice, but I prefer the 1/500 exposure image.  I think the sharper water looks more interesting as it shows more details of the turbulence and flow


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Aug 24, 2019)

Wow, that’s an amazing handheld 1 second shot. I don’t see any camera shake. My vote is that one.


----------



## danbob6 (Aug 24, 2019)

My vote is for the second one also.  Shame about the people in the upper right of the image.


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 24, 2019)

Beautiful spot! I know it's not, but the leaning rock face really messed with me. I kept wanting to tilt my screen. LOL personally I prefer the slow, because it seems to have just a tad more richer color, detail in the shadows and less noise. Also less people in the slow.


----------



## snowbear (Aug 24, 2019)

I like both.  I really prefer the slow, silky water but sometimes the water stopping fast shutter is good, especially with things like close ups of fountains.


----------



## crf8 (Aug 24, 2019)

#2


FB.me/CRFinTN  Facebook 
www.flickr.com/crf8/


----------



## paigew (Aug 24, 2019)

I prefer the slow! My c&c is that the wb is too cool. What a gorgeous location and shot!!


----------



## Designer (Aug 24, 2019)

#2


----------



## Jeff15 (Aug 24, 2019)

Number two for me.....................


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Aug 24, 2019)

#1 for me, even though usually I don't like slow speed water.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 24, 2019)

I preferred the way the water looks in the shot that was made at 1/500 of a second. I preferred to see a little bit more of the character of the water flow, which is up skewered pretty much in the cotton candy look that one second gives a stream of this volume and velocity.


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 24, 2019)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> Wow, that’s an amazing handheld 1 second shot. I don’t see any camera shake. My vote is that one.



Thanks.  I did have a railing to steady my body a bit but not in a spot I could rest the camera or my arms.  I took about 10 of these 1 second shots from this angle and this was the only one that was really any good.  



danbob6 said:


> My vote is for the second one also.  Shame about the people in the upper right of the image.



Yeah - I tried briefly to remove them but it was more complicated than I could manage quickly so I left them there.  If I decide to print it I’ll out some effort into it and make them disappear.


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 24, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> Both nice, but I prefer the 1/500 exposure image.  I think the sharper water looks more interesting as it shows more details of the turbulence and flow



Thanks.  I lean toward that one as well.  



smoke665 said:


> Beautiful spot! I know it's not, but the leaning rock face really messed with me. I kept wanting to tilt my screen. LOL personally I prefer the slow, because it seems to have just a tad more richer color, detail in the shadows and less noise. Also less people in the slow.



I struggled straightening this one because nothing was level.  I used the camera level when shooting but may have been off by a bit.  In the end I used the pool of water and the railings to straighten it.  it could probably go a smidge in the other direction and be correct but then the slopes rocks make it look off.  



snowbear said:


> I like both.  I really prefer the slow, silky water but sometimes the water stopping fast shutter is good, especially with things like close ups of fountains.



Thanks!



crf8 said:


> #2
> 
> 
> FB.me/CRFinTN  Facebook
> www.flickr.com/crf8/



Thanks for the input!



paigew said:


> I prefer the slow! My c&c is that the wb is too cool. What a gorgeous location and shot!!



Thanks I appreciate the feedback.  I do tend to prefer a cooler wb.  I shot this using the Fuji  Velvia film simulation which I think has a  slightly cooler wb than the straight Fuji look. This is a jpeg that I lifted the shadows a bit and also used a preset filter in Snapseed app that may have cooled it off a bit.  

This location is gorgeous and so easy to get to.  It can barely be called a hike.  It’s really a mostly paved handicapped accessible trail that is less than half a mile from the road to get to the bottom of the falls.


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 24, 2019)

Designer said:


> #2



Thanks for your opinion.  I tend to agree.  



Jeff15 said:


> Number two for me.....................



Thanks!



Dean_Gretsch said:


> #1 for me, even though usually I don't like slow speed water.



I typically don’t take the slow waterfall photos but it was dark enough that I could get away with it with no filter so seemed like I ought to try it.  I was surprised how well the slow one came out.  I didn’t expect to get anything usable below 1/60.  



Derrel said:


> I preferred the way the water looks in the shot that was made at 1/500 of a second. I preferred to see a little bit more of the character of the water flow, which is up skewered pretty much in the cotton candy look that one second gives a stream of this volume and velocity.



I agree and I think somewhere in the middle of the two would have been perfect but none of the 15 or 30 second shots I took came out sharp at this angle.  I have a few different views at other speeds where the water came out less white.  If I go back there in fall with my tripod and the light is the same I’ll try a 30 second shot.


----------



## K9Kirk (Aug 25, 2019)

Awhile back, someone here described the water in pics like in #1 as looking milky and I think that's a pretty accurate description. Not only that, it looks like it's being pumped/shot out of a nozzle at a very fast rate with all it's straight lines. The water in #2 flows gently and is more 'crystal like' in appearance, it has more like a crystal bead curtain effect over the rock underneath it compared to a shear curtain effect in #1. the realistic water also seems to have layers where the milky water looks flat. Crystal is the clear winner, IMO . (excuse the pun) I must say though, in milks defense, a grilled cheese sammich isn't the same without it. Don't let my opinion stop anyone from being creative and having fun, keep on clickin' in the free world! 
BTW, both are very nice pics. What a lovely place! Looks like something out of a fable. An enchanted forest, if you will.


----------



## paigew (Aug 25, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> Tropicalmemories said:
> 
> 
> > Both nice, but I prefer the 1/500 exposure image.  I think the sharper water looks more interesting as it shows more details of the turbulence and flow
> ...




Oh wow I didn’t realize this was film! Love!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CherylL (Aug 25, 2019)

Handheld???  Great job.  I think they both have their merits so too hard to pick which one.   The XT-2 did a nice job on the film simulation.  I need to try those out.


----------



## Jeff G (Aug 25, 2019)

I think in this case I prefer the soft water in the first shot. I like the sharp water better in the first fall of the second shot but when it reaches the second fall it is more distracting.


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 25, 2019)

K9Kirk said:


> Awhile back, someone here described the water in pics like in #1 as looking milky and I think that's a pretty accurate description. Not only that, it looks like it's being pumped/shot out of a nozzle at a very fast rate with all it's straight lines. The water in #2 flows gently and is more 'crystal like' in appearance, it has more like a crystal bead curtain effect over the rock underneath it compared to a shear curtain effect in #1. the realistic water also seems to have layers where the milky water looks flat. Crystal is the clear winner, IMO . (excuse the pun) I must say though, in milks defense, a grilled cheese sammich isn't the same without it. Don't let my opinion stop anyone from being creative and having fun, keep on clickin' in the free world!
> BTW, both are very nice pics. What a lovely place! Looks like something out of a fable. An enchanted forest, if you will.



Thanks for your input.  Yes a very enchanted place!  



paigew said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > Tropicalmemories said:
> ...



No not film, Fuji has several film simulations built in to the Xt2.  You can shoot directly in the film simulation mode or convert a standard raw file to any of the film simulations in camera (Velvia, Classic Chrome, Astia etc.).  
An Introduction to Fujifilm’s Film Simulation Modes



CherylL said:


> Handheld???  Great job.  I think they both have their merits so too hard to pick which one.   The XT-2 did a nice job on the film simulation.  I need to try those out.



Fun to play around with.  For flowers/landscapes I shoot in Velvia most of the time.  For portraits I go back to Provia standard.  



Jeff G said:


> I think in this case I prefer the soft water in the first shot. I like the sharp water better in the first fall of the second shot but when it reaches the second fall it is more distracting.



Good input thanks.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Aug 25, 2019)

I was looking at some long exposure waterfall images on Flickr - and I think one factor in making effective use of the long exposure is the length of the 'fall' of the waterfall.

A short drop creates the rapids/babbling brook look which I think suits a short exposure to freeze the features.  Whereas a long drop works well with long exposure as the water is spraying in a range of directions, and so creates the 'fairy-tale' look of white feathered spray.


----------



## smoke665 (Aug 25, 2019)

Blur or not is a creative choice and everyone has a preference, I can go either way. However my personal feeling is go one way or the other, no in between. If sharp I want it razor sharp, if blurred I want it blurred enough that there was doubt that was my intention and not a missed focus.


----------



## johnfreed0 (Aug 27, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> Which do you prefer?  Also c&c welcome.
> 
> This is Sabbaday Falls a very popular spot off the Kancamagus Hwy in the NH White Mountains which is one of my all time favorite places to be.  These were hand held no Nd filter, Xt2 with the 18-55 at 21mm.  The slow shutter was a 1 sec exposure at f/22, ISO 320.  The other was at 1.500, f/4.5, ISO 4000
> 
> ...



It depends on what you want the picture to convey.  But, if it were me doing the selection, I'd probably go for the first, slow speed, shot.  It adds goes with the 'softness' of the scene.

I've shot Sabbaday falls a number of times but, since I was using a view camera, a fast enough shutter speed to 'freeze' the water was not in the cards.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2019)

1/500 for me.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 28, 2019)

Oh wow.... I was led to believe that the pictures like in Pic 1 was how it was supposed to be....

I like both but #2 for me.....

A really nice place to be.... I will look for something that I took a long while ago in this thread. I didnt have any ND Filters or stuff to get a milky looking picture.


----------



## PJM (Aug 30, 2019)

The "no" for me.  It gives me a better feel for how the water actually moves down the cascade.  And very nice for hand-held.


----------



## SquarePeg (Aug 30, 2019)

Shoeman said:


> Oh wow.... I was led to believe that the pictures like in Pic 1 was how it was supposed to be....
> 
> I like both but #2 for me.....
> 
> A really nice place to be.... I will look for something that I took a long while ago in this thread. I didnt have any ND Filters or stuff to get a milky looking picture.



I think the slow shutter waterfall is more of a challenge so maybe more popular?  I didn’t use a ND filter but it was dark enough in the woods at that time of the morning to do without.  



PJM said:


> The "no" for me.  It gives me a better feel for how the water actually moves down the cascade.  And very nice for hand-held.



Thanks I appreciate the feedback.


----------

