spast1kunt wrote:It's the first thing everyone who gets a proper camera does. When my brother got an SLR at the age of sixteen or seventeen he joined the local photography club and took millions of pictures like that.
I regard it as an option of last resort to be used on those rare occasions when there is no alternative (eg. the waterfall is in a gloomy ravine and there isn't enough light for anything but a long exposure). Unfortunately it seems that every
fcuker who ever publishes
a photograph, at whatever level, is under the impression that you have
to do it no matter what. (Indeed I vaguely remember one actually asserting that that was the case.) Which means that the easiest way to obtain a decent image of some waterfall that you can't see for yourself may be to extract an I frame from an HD video of it, because anything taken as a still image that you can possibly find will be blurred to fcuk.
Generally falling water on the kind of scale you tend to find in England comes out best at around 1/125, to strike the right compromise to make the photo capture at least some of the sense of movement you get when looking at the real thing. Short exposure frozen shots can be interesting but mostly just look frozen, and long exposures look like the watercourse has a severe case of dry rot.