- Jan 25, 2014
- New Jersey, USA
- Real Name
Thanks. I think the choice of long exposure or not is not just preference. It also depends on what you are trying to create in your image.Nice break from the typical long exposure waterfall shots. I think this better captures the power of the water.
In my case. It is a case by case basis. The problem with choosing one over the other is that the scene is what matters and no 2 are the same. A waterfall is in motion, that is what nature is giving us not frozen water. A long exposure often is more representative of the actual scene than a still. Even in my shot at 1/200 it is in essence a long exposure because the water was so powerful and fast. If I shot at 1/1000, 1/3000 or higher, it would have looked totally different. It would have frozen the water robbing it of the motion that creates the power. In other cases, the scene isn't about power. Many times Nature presents the fall in the form of a calming water pattern. A long-exposure expresses that type of scene best. If you freeze the water too much it has edges, hardly calming and not representing reality.Agree...speaking only for myself...I can't help but appreciate the technical achievement of the various LE types...but its hard to beat the natural environment.
So my point is to not get caught up with forcing one technique or another, but use the technique which allows you to present the scene in the way you want it conveyed or remembered.