It's really hard to take fast shutter speed waterfall shots when there is next to no ambient light. Hence the lightpainting.
As for the comments about the foreground brightness, that could be an issue. The processing was done on my laptop, so I have no idea what it looks like on a calibrated system. DS On 6 September 2011 23:45, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruce Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On 11-09-06 9:15 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote: >>> A technically great HDR type shot. Truly a bit different& appreciated. >>> But may I add some comments? Please do take it constructively. >>> Flowing water should look like flowing water, the way nature meant it >>> to be. It should not be made to look like gas tumbling down instead of >>> water. >>> Of late I have seen too many good waterfall photos overdone to look >>> quite artificial. >>> Bipin. >> >>With respect Bipin, if we all stuck to portraying images of the world >>"as nature intended it to be" we'd first of all have to stop framing >>still pictures, except perhaps of rocks. Nature does not stand still for >>anyone. > > I also used to dislike the long-shutter speed water look but I've come > to believe that it yields a picture that actually represents *more* > accurately our memory of the original scene. When you recall a > waterfall you can never place each individual droplet or rivulet of > water. > > Of course, I also still enjoy fast shutter speed shots - i just > appreciate them now as being *less* like "reality" rather than more. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
