Your picture of the day...
- Thread starter Dirty Karlos
- Start date
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Though I disagree with your opinion on how to shoot water. If you do not like it that is up to you but to try and dictate to someone else how they should render water in photograph is just wrong.
I shoot water in many conditions from flat calm with reflections to huge waves and everything between. How I describe the movement of water is up to me.
Being in posession of an opinion does not make it correct.
We will just have to diassgree on this issue.
Last edited:
If only they knew Alf...
Though it has improved quite a bit in the past 30 years...
There are so many beautiful places around your home town some of it probably isn't so.
Your photography certainly has brought a lot of the beauty of the area in West Cumberland and the lakes, really would like to get up there just to take pictures, my local "Lakes" is "The Elan valley" and I am learning a lot about the area to get some really good pictures.
[/URL]Elan by S1...., on Flickr[/IMG]![29543502400_5ecff56146.jpg](http://[URL="https://flic.kr/p/M1EaZ3"][IMG]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8454/29543502400_5ecff56146.jpg)
Thanks Mate
That is a nice shot I like the mist on the water.
Oof!
The only thing missing from that were the words 'yo mumma!'
When I wrote what I did I was doing it more in a conversational voice than a criticising voice. I suppose that's the problem with the written word - tone of voice and nuance gets lost.
I was engaging in conversation rather than aloof commentary.
Sorry if it came across otherwise.
Oh well...
I happy to debate the merits of any photography technique I or others use.
I suggest you consider statements as this
Do you see me as an addict?
Oh, blimey! Don't be so literal!
Only in as much as you use the technique a great deal.
Look, if you're happy with it, and if other's like it, then fill your boots. It's not something I care too much about.
That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
While I agree this technique has become to the digital medium what the tobacco filter was to 35mm colour photography I can’t agree there is no place for it.
It really is all about a sense of when applying this look assists in conveying a certain mood and adding to a picture which brings us back to photography as an art form. A position where everyone has a right to express themselves as they see fit and to hell with the critics! That some artists have made a name from an ability to apply narratives to what many consider to be rather unexceptional work but somehow silences critics in an “Emperor’s new cloths” kind of way is of course not lost on me but that’s another argument.
K
Last edited:
Unless it is completely still, any way of capturing water in a photograph is unrealistic. It moves...
If you use a short exposure, water will appear unnaturally static whereas a longer exposure depicts the flow and produces that "Smoky Water" effect.
Both are simply artefacts of the process and neither are true representations of the scene.
Most photographs these days are produced on modest equipment by "photographers" that barely understand the process. Their phones or cameras automatically bias the exposure calculation towards shorter exposures that make it less likely that they will inadvertently shake the image. Therefore the common perception is shaped by the limited skill and resources of such "photographers" because they simply produce the photographic fodder that is thoughtlessly consumed by the mass market.
As we are much more used to seeing photographs that lack a mindful input from the photographer, it is perhaps not surprising that people think that "motionless water" is the only way that water should be depicted. It is not, it is just one of a spectrum of options between two extremes. If you were to look at images produced on glass plates or early film you would notice that "smoky water" was the only option then because of the lower sensitivity of the emulsions available. For a while, when film sensitivity improved, there was just as much debate over the "frozen water" effect.
It's not a film thing or a digital thing, it is just the result of a thoughtful choice made by a photographer with more skill than the average snapper with a phone camera.
An experienced photographer like Alf is able to make a choice between these representations based upon mood, personal preferences or even the logistical needs of the exposure and his equipment.
His choice, like it or not... Personally, I like it.
If you use a short exposure, water will appear unnaturally static whereas a longer exposure depicts the flow and produces that "Smoky Water" effect.
Both are simply artefacts of the process and neither are true representations of the scene.
Most photographs these days are produced on modest equipment by "photographers" that barely understand the process. Their phones or cameras automatically bias the exposure calculation towards shorter exposures that make it less likely that they will inadvertently shake the image. Therefore the common perception is shaped by the limited skill and resources of such "photographers" because they simply produce the photographic fodder that is thoughtlessly consumed by the mass market.
As we are much more used to seeing photographs that lack a mindful input from the photographer, it is perhaps not surprising that people think that "motionless water" is the only way that water should be depicted. It is not, it is just one of a spectrum of options between two extremes. If you were to look at images produced on glass plates or early film you would notice that "smoky water" was the only option then because of the lower sensitivity of the emulsions available. For a while, when film sensitivity improved, there was just as much debate over the "frozen water" effect.
It's not a film thing or a digital thing, it is just the result of a thoughtful choice made by a photographer with more skill than the average snapper with a phone camera.
An experienced photographer like Alf is able to make a choice between these representations based upon mood, personal preferences or even the logistical needs of the exposure and his equipment.
His choice, like it or not... Personally, I like it.
It does bring into question about how much one should tinker with images.
That all, depends, of course, on what the purpose of the image is - whether it is a simple record or whether the artist intended some kind of narrative to the image (I'm not entirely sure they're the right words, but I hope you know what I am saying).
I can see the pros and cons of fiddling with the image on the computer. I fully appreciate that a camera seldom takes an image of what you actually did see. There's all sorts of technological reasons for that (which are well above my fluffy little head), and therefore some computer jiggery-pokery can actually bring out what the viewer actually saw. However, it can sometimes go to an extreme and the image is turned into a 'lie' (of course, if the image is being used expressively, for example, then the notion of a lying image is irrelevant is meaningless).
That all, depends, of course, on what the purpose of the image is - whether it is a simple record or whether the artist intended some kind of narrative to the image (I'm not entirely sure they're the right words, but I hope you know what I am saying).
I can see the pros and cons of fiddling with the image on the computer. I fully appreciate that a camera seldom takes an image of what you actually did see. There's all sorts of technological reasons for that (which are well above my fluffy little head), and therefore some computer jiggery-pokery can actually bring out what the viewer actually saw. However, it can sometimes go to an extreme and the image is turned into a 'lie' (of course, if the image is being used expressively, for example, then the notion of a lying image is irrelevant is meaningless).
The greatest lie ever told was that the camera never lies.
It would be more correct to say that the camera can never actually show the truth.
Given that every photograph is necessarily a fictional representation of reality then why on earth should a photographer only try to represent reality?
Personally, I normally try to represent something that I saw or felt at a location. How I choose to do that is completely subservient to the objective as far as I am concerned.
I carry the equipment, I travel to the location, I choose the subject, I make the decisions that lead to capturing the data, I process the data to produce an image...
Why do you get to say the image is right or wrong?
It would be more correct to say that the camera can never actually show the truth.
Given that every photograph is necessarily a fictional representation of reality then why on earth should a photographer only try to represent reality?
Personally, I normally try to represent something that I saw or felt at a location. How I choose to do that is completely subservient to the objective as far as I am concerned.
I carry the equipment, I travel to the location, I choose the subject, I make the decisions that lead to capturing the data, I process the data to produce an image...
Why do you get to say the image is right or wrong?
This is the kind of discussion that's had by Day 1 Year 1 Art History undergraduates the world over.
But it still stands.
I (and everyone else) get to say the image is right or wrong the second you publish it. At that point the image is no longer yours (not in a copyright sense, obviously, but in the sense of interpretation and meaning).
In my professional life I am a writer.
I have written for all sorts of publications - newspapers, magazines, and books, even prose. Of course, I own the copyright to those words (well, not always - if writing for a client then they will invariably have copyright ownership written into the contract), but once that article/piece/whatever is published I believe I lose all right to saying what it is about and how it should be interpreted.
In that sense the piece is no longer 'mine'. It becomes the property of each and every individual who 'consumes' it. That, of course, extends to all art forms. Therefore, I and everyone else, have full right to say whether the artist is 'right' or 'wrong' in what they have done. The consumer (or reader, viewer, listener, etc) has no obligation to accept what the artist tells them and the art-form becomes the individual property of everyone who experiences it and they are free to interact with it in anyway they choose. In that sense the artist is no longer complicit in the piece of art, and what they intended (though it may have some validity) is secondary to how the individual reacts to it.
None of that, of course, should stop the artist from doing what they believe is 'right'. Quite the opposite. It'd be a bloody shame if it did.
The image will always be mine, what you are entitled to is just your interpretation and perception of the image.
You may very well have a different one to mine and from your perspective yours may well seem more important, but it does not in any way alter my ownership, intent or delivery unless I allow it to.
The point you made earlier about tinkering with images is exactly such a case. The image above for example is heavily processed. Some will like it some will not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on that.
However, the question of it's authenticity is not simple. The pictorial elements were all captured at the scene within a certain interval of time. The fact that the events depicted may not all have happened at the same instant does not make it an unrealistic representation of the scene and the events that happened there on that day. At times the circle was full of tourists, at others it was empty. The rooks constantly fly over the circle but did they do it at the time the light broke through the clouds? Maybe, maybe not.
If I had left the shutter open for ten minutes everything would have passed through the lens onto the sensor but it would have made a meaningless blur. By using my skills in "tinkering" with the image I have been able to produce a coherent image which reflects my human impression of events on that day. My choice, like it or not...
What is however completely unrealistic is the fact that it has all been rendered in black and white, yet that is the alteration that most people would have very little issue with because they are so used to seeing it. Perception born out of habit not logic.
I'm off now, got to give a lecture on tinkering with photographs...
You may very well have a different one to mine and from your perspective yours may well seem more important, but it does not in any way alter my ownership, intent or delivery unless I allow it to.
The point you made earlier about tinkering with images is exactly such a case. The image above for example is heavily processed. Some will like it some will not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on that.
However, the question of it's authenticity is not simple. The pictorial elements were all captured at the scene within a certain interval of time. The fact that the events depicted may not all have happened at the same instant does not make it an unrealistic representation of the scene and the events that happened there on that day. At times the circle was full of tourists, at others it was empty. The rooks constantly fly over the circle but did they do it at the time the light broke through the clouds? Maybe, maybe not.
If I had left the shutter open for ten minutes everything would have passed through the lens onto the sensor but it would have made a meaningless blur. By using my skills in "tinkering" with the image I have been able to produce a coherent image which reflects my human impression of events on that day. My choice, like it or not...
What is however completely unrealistic is the fact that it has all been rendered in black and white, yet that is the alteration that most people would have very little issue with because they are so used to seeing it. Perception born out of habit not logic.
I'm off now, got to give a lecture on tinkering with photographs...
Absolutely. No disagreement with that from me. But once you've released the picture to the public then the artist's interpretation and perception is no more valid than the audience's. That's my point.
True enough. But equally, the artist's perspective may also seem more important to them. But neither has primacy over the other though.
But that's just it, I think it does. Or, to come at it in another direction, what right has the artist to tell the viewer they are 'wrong' in their interpretation? The artist has no right (in the sense of ownership) over the viewer's reaction to the art-form. The second you release an image you have lost control over it (in the sense of how it should be interpreted). By definition, when you release the piece of art you are effectively saying ,'I've done the best I can and here it is.' That does not give the artist any ownership over the audience's feelings, reaction, or (most importantly to this discussion) their interpretation. Yes, the artist may still believe it says and reflects all that they felt and with any luck a good many people will feel the same. All we are left with are multiple 'truths' to the image as each person, including the artist, bring their own equally valid interpretation to it. You may indeed own yours, but I own mine as well, and both are just as valid. The artist no longer has primacy. If you want to keep ownership and don't want other people to get the 'wrong' interpretation/feeling when interacting with your art then you're better off keeping it to yourself.
Again, I agree. If you look back you'll see that's precisely what I have been saying. That's just my point - the artist may tinker to create the feeling and mood they believe is necessary but the viewer is under no obligation to say they achieved that.
Funnily enough I was going to raise the subject of black and white images myself when I first broached the subject of tinkering with images. And you're absolutely right in what you say.
People, huh?
Hope it goes/went well!
Cheers Alf, it was very early in the morning, had to get up especially to drive 90 minutes just to catch the early morning in the valley, wanted to catch the moon big, bright and in a beautiful setting...
It will go a lot better when somebody arrives to open the doors so I can get set up.....
It is possible to render water in may ways with camera and it is down to the photographer to use what they have in front of them to produce an acceptable image. I personally rarely set out to create a pure record of a landscape scene though there are times when that is acceptable.
I spend a lot of time shooting the sea and in particular a loacl beach at Parton on the west coast of Cumbria. This is a post industrial beach where the bay has been is use isnce Roman times. It has had coal mines, a brickworks, a foundry and other industry around it. It sections covered in slag from iron working remains of structures and is hardly picturesque in the calssic sense but I shoot there regularly and was there last night again. I have also had people say that the sea is not the colour shown in you photos the sea is blue not brown my answer to that is "that depends on when and where"
So how do you render water?
This is a technically terrible shot but it was not easy to get due to those waves being 10 feet high and the spray being terrible and it was hard to stand up.
Here the water is frozen with a shutter speed of 1/400th second
Light-and-waves by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Here we have the following day a shutter speed of 1/10th second not an unusually slow shutter speed. This shutter speed shows the travel of the water but the wave forms are captured on this occasion.
The-rushing-tide by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Here is a 1/4 second with wave heading straight for the camera
Parton rough sea sunset by Alf Branch, on Flickr
The shutter speed is not relevant with a reflection like this rockppol gives
Rock pool sunset by Alf Branch, on Flickr
Here is a 30 msecond image rendering the water as a mist to simplify the image
rocks and swirls by Alf Branch, on Flickr
How these turn out is down to shutter speed and conditions of the water at the time
I spend a lot of time shooting the sea and in particular a loacl beach at Parton on the west coast of Cumbria. This is a post industrial beach where the bay has been is use isnce Roman times. It has had coal mines, a brickworks, a foundry and other industry around it. It sections covered in slag from iron working remains of structures and is hardly picturesque in the calssic sense but I shoot there regularly and was there last night again. I have also had people say that the sea is not the colour shown in you photos the sea is blue not brown my answer to that is "that depends on when and where"
So how do you render water?
This is a technically terrible shot but it was not easy to get due to those waves being 10 feet high and the spray being terrible and it was hard to stand up.
Here the water is frozen with a shutter speed of 1/400th second
Light-and-waves by Alf Branch, on FlickrHere we have the following day a shutter speed of 1/10th second not an unusually slow shutter speed. This shutter speed shows the travel of the water but the wave forms are captured on this occasion.
The-rushing-tide by Alf Branch, on FlickrHere is a 1/4 second with wave heading straight for the camera
Parton rough sea sunset by Alf Branch, on FlickrThe shutter speed is not relevant with a reflection like this rockppol gives
Rock pool sunset by Alf Branch, on FlickrHere is a 30 msecond image rendering the water as a mist to simplify the image
rocks and swirls by Alf Branch, on FlickrHow these turn out is down to shutter speed and conditions of the water at the time
I'm not sure the technicalities of composing the shot are a complete defense.
Let's take the pictures you have just presented, and Wayland's montage as well, as example.
In your first picture I (note the use of the first-person personal pronoun - this is undoubtedly MY PERSONAL view. Others, quite rightly, will differ. That should go without saying) think you have perfectly captured the movement and power of the water.
However, why the smoky water effect fails for me is its very unreality. I think it fails, is wrong, or (a better distinction) does not communicate with me is because this effect renders it something other than water. To me it does not reflect the movement of water, it doesn't even look like water any more. Hence the 'smoky' adjective. Oh yes, I know that image, movement, emotion, etc has connotation and doesn't have to be literal, but for my aesthetic the smoky water effect still does not convey the literal or metaphoric aspects of water. It's not water at all.
Same with Wayland's henge/raven/clouds confection. Technically it is unimpeachable. But as I look at images like that I find myself checking the corners for the Disney channel logo.
When I look at the picture you took of the shell on the beach or the man standing on the concrete box amid the grass, both of those have interpretative qualities rather than a literal rendering and both speak to me with a far clearer voice about the landscape and what it meant to you than the Disney-like effects used elsewhere. They communicate with me.
Again, to underline it all, this is how I personally react to such tinkering in this context (I'm sure there are some contexts when this sort of thing is exactly right). The person standing next to me may well think quite differently. The artist almost certainly feels differently to me. But the fact that I, and maybe someone else, disagrees with them means they have failed with this image to communicate their thoughts and feelings TO ME.
But that's no bad thing.
And another underlining.
I still love looking at the images people take and this thread is one of the very best things on this forum. So a sincere thanks to all for sharing the images. It matters not one whit whether one likes each individual image or not, the fact they're shared is a great thing, interesting, enjoyable, and I'm glad they're there.
Let's take the pictures you have just presented, and Wayland's montage as well, as example.
In your first picture I (note the use of the first-person personal pronoun - this is undoubtedly MY PERSONAL view. Others, quite rightly, will differ. That should go without saying) think you have perfectly captured the movement and power of the water.
However, why the smoky water effect fails for me is its very unreality. I think it fails, is wrong, or (a better distinction) does not communicate with me is because this effect renders it something other than water. To me it does not reflect the movement of water, it doesn't even look like water any more. Hence the 'smoky' adjective. Oh yes, I know that image, movement, emotion, etc has connotation and doesn't have to be literal, but for my aesthetic the smoky water effect still does not convey the literal or metaphoric aspects of water. It's not water at all.
Same with Wayland's henge/raven/clouds confection. Technically it is unimpeachable. But as I look at images like that I find myself checking the corners for the Disney channel logo.
When I look at the picture you took of the shell on the beach or the man standing on the concrete box amid the grass, both of those have interpretative qualities rather than a literal rendering and both speak to me with a far clearer voice about the landscape and what it meant to you than the Disney-like effects used elsewhere. They communicate with me.
Again, to underline it all, this is how I personally react to such tinkering in this context (I'm sure there are some contexts when this sort of thing is exactly right). The person standing next to me may well think quite differently. The artist almost certainly feels differently to me. But the fact that I, and maybe someone else, disagrees with them means they have failed with this image to communicate their thoughts and feelings TO ME.
But that's no bad thing.
And another underlining.
I still love looking at the images people take and this thread is one of the very best things on this forum. So a sincere thanks to all for sharing the images. It matters not one whit whether one likes each individual image or not, the fact they're shared is a great thing, interesting, enjoyable, and I'm glad they're there.
Last edited:
Similar threads
