You mean like these.
http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery8/photographs/Kent_State_Falls(Double_Falls).jpg
http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery6/photographs/Bash_Bish_Falls.jpg
http://www.mindspring.com/~palling/photography/gallery8/photographs/Bash_Bish_Falls2.jpg
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Indeed!
What really gets to me is the so frequent and seemingly well accepted, and trite use of long exposures and blurred, smooth moving water. How much more interesting moving water photos might be if they showed the water more like we see it, which, of course, would require shorter shutter speeds. I seem to recall reading somewhere that shutter speeds in the area of 1/15 or 1/30 would provide more realistic results, but I could well be wrong about the exposure time.
For those of you who photograph water scenes, how about moving away from
such clich� photos and try to put a little more thought and creativity into
what you're doing instead of making what is essentially the same photograph
over and over.
Shel
From: Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here's yet another of those tiresome waterfall photos.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PAW_--_Waterfall4.html
As usual comments and criticisms are welcome, more or less...
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
