A high-resolution image of the same scene produces a longer shutter speed look as a result of image blending and the way motion is handled in camera.
Critique Style Requested:In-depth
The photographer has shared comprehensive information about their intent and creative vision for this image. Please examine the details and offer feedback on how they can most effectively realize their vision.
Self Critique
We discuss varying shutter speeds when it comes to moving water and so this is a bit of an exercise in that vein. My preference these days is for more texture in water, but with the expanse of the surrounding forest I think a slower one works better here. Thoughts?
Creative direction
This is an important, but relatively insignificant stream in the sense that it is short from its headwaters to the Wisconsin river and doesn’t have a strong flow all year. But it does flow and many birds, mammals, crustaceans and insects rely on it. Not to mention amphibians, too. So the habitat is important to relay that sense, but also of its fragility and vulnerability. Am I getting that across?
Specific Feedback
I’d like your thoughts on the shutter speed and whether either works better to show the precious resource aspect. Also the general composition.
Technical Details
Tripod and CPL
The first is a single RAW image and the second is a high resolution RAW image made from 8 photos and combined in camera which produces an 80 megapixel file.
No. 1
No. 2
Processed essentially identically in Lr and Ps to correct some geometry, even luminosity, adjust wb and of course the crop to keep the interest on the stream and the surrounding woods. Some distraction removal as needed.
Description
This view and a couple others nearby have always eluded me because the water wasn’t flowing as much and so it didn’t have the presence needed to make it work. After a lot of snowmelt and rain, I think it does and so I worked at getting some views that don’t happen every year. Like the little waterfall I posted earlier which is downstream from this.
Hmmm… I think your camera knows a trick that mine doesn’t. (Or that it hasn’t told me about.) Very interesting possibility, for sure. I’ve used a similar technique after the fact, stacking a burst of exposures of something like a moving wave when I didn’t have an ND filter with me. I can see this technique could cause problems with movement in leaves or the like outside the water itself – but those could be added artistic effects, or masked out with a stacked single exposure.
I think it’s difficult to illustrate the fragility or vulnerability of a stream – possibly by shooting it when the water flow is just a trickle but there is an obvious stream bed that isn’t filled. I do think the longer apparent SS works well, though, to separate the stream from the busy surroundings and bring it forward as the main subject.
I wonder if you could have moved to the right to reposition the FG trunk. I’d prefer it to block the somewhat empty area in the UL, but then maybe that would reveal a distraction on the bank.
A very lovely and peaceful little scene. The gentle bend in the stream works very well in pulling the eye/viewer deeper in to the scene, giving some depth with this composition. That moss-covered tree is stealth! as I didn’t notice at first - a bit of camo. And I think that somewhat obscured presence actually works very well in your capture.
Excellent exercise on the shutter speed and water treatment, recently touched on in Bonnie’s recent abstract. Personally, while my eye doesn’t see or register either of these examples, the longer shutter speed and higher-rez stacked image is so much more pleasing. And not just because the water is smoothed out, but a result of that process has the water as a much simpler and unified element. Whereas the single frame at 1/10 stopped the action more - which results in all kinds of white chunks, specs of foam, bubbles, all kinds of distractions that give me the urge to want to clone them out. Said another way, the stream is now just as busy and chaotic as the chaos of the rocks, leaves and forest litter. On the other hand, the smoothed out water becomes a simple, elegant, single element… But that’s me. (thanks for the technique reveal I must remember this as Diane mentions as a substitue for an ND filter.)
I’m also with Diane on this. To me, while I think for most who enjoy and experience nature, it’s like a given that we all know there’s life among the forest liter, and that the stream provides life for many, many creatures… we all know this. BUT as with many scenes just like this, I really don’t get that sense or message - again, we all just know this; it’s most difficult to show that in a photo. Me thinks. Having said that, by all means, the feeling of peace and serenity can certainly be captured. And you’ve done that beautifully here.
First off, I like the second image better with the whispy water as it leads my eye into the scene better and makes the creek a unifying ribbon in the story of the photo.
However, I am remiss about the technique you describe. Why are you stacking exposures? A low ISO and small aperture, and if needed a ND filter would have produced the same effect.
Thanks @Diane_Miller, @Lon_Overacker & @Youssef_Ismail for offering your thoughts and insight. I agree about the longer shutter speed here. Funny that the tree kind of disappears if you forget about it or didn’t know it was there right away. Being on site meant that, of course, I composed with it in mind, but I didn’t understand how camouflaged it really is. I love that aspect now. Oh and yes, I put it there to block a big patch of foam the water agitation creates.
In some ways its a lonely little stream because it’s relatively short and shallow, but it’s also photographically interesting and I never tire of visiting it or the beaver dam that somewhat restricts its flow.
Sorry if I was unclear about the camera technique used for the second photo. Natively my camera is 20 megapixels, but it has a high-resolution function that can produce 40 or 80 megapixel RAW files as well. It does this by taking 8 photos and shifting the image on the sensor by 1 pixel and putting them together. There are two modes to deal with moving objects - the first (original to the camera’s release) leaves ghostly after effects and the second (firmware update in 2020 I think) will attempt to freeze the object in only one frame. For the second image I used the original ghost effect motion method since the only thing really moving much was the water.
So it isn’t exposure blending as we would do in post, it’s image blending in camera to produce a higher resolution photo. I don’t use it often because mostly I use NDs and other techniques to give me the silky water effect and I didn’t know it would produce it with high-res so it was a surprise. I think most people only use it if they plan to print very large and need more pixels. Either the 40 or 80 mp files are 125 mb, so it seems weird to even bother with the lower resolution if it takes up just as much space. Pulling one of those into Photoshop meant I couldn’t save as a .psd, but had to either flatten it (which I did) or save it as a .psb (Photoshop Big = large document) format. Of course I never run into that with my relatively puny 20 mp files.
The smoother water works better here because it contrasts with the highly textured trees and ground. The silky water has a more delicate feel which speaks to me of fragility, not stability.
That being said, neither of these versions as a whole speak to me of fragility. The highly textured scene, strong verticals of the trees in the background, and strong blocks of shape (left ground-stream-right ground) give me a feeling of solidity.
I’m not sure how you would convey fragility and vulnerability via framing a larger scene. It’s a really interesting question. A quick google search for “fragility landscape images” doesn’t turn up anything that speaks to me of fragility via the visual language in the image. There’s lots of photos of landscapes that may be fragile, but the images themselves don’t intrinsically convey fragility. What would convey fragility? - low contrast and unbalanced framing come to my mind.
Maybe a series, with smaller scenes and details included would be better suited to the task. It seems like it would be easier to find details that speak to fragility/instability/tenuousness/vulnerability. That seems like an interesting exercise.
Thanks for your in-depth response. I appreciate it, especially the idea for how I could possibly convey the fragility, or at least, mutability, of this brook. Over the years I’ve photographed it many times in all seasons (although in winter it is totally snow covered so doesn’t show) so I might have something in the archives that could pair with other photos.
This sounds like a wonderful project! I’m also not sure how to convey fragility and vulnerability, but I think of some of your winter scenes with tiny plants “isolated” by snow. I think it’s a very important concept, not only in nature but as analogy to the larger world of humanity (or what’s left of it).
I’m not sure how to convey them either but I think that’s an excellent approach to how to create a photograph. Starting out from that perspective can lead to great work.
I would say that neither shot works completely well. I personally don’t like the milky look of the stream. I find it bizarre. The problem with the faster SS image is all the confusion that those scattered white bubbles create. They seem to be everywhere.
Thanks @Diane_Miller & @Igor_Doncov - fragility could make an interesting theme to try to convey in pictures. I’ll have to give it some thought and return to this brook. Not soon though since I spent 6 hours doing volunteer work on my segment of the Ice Age trail and ended up covered in ticks. Joy.
Insofar as the bubbles go, yeah, there is a lot of them due to the water chemistry and agitation. Not sure how not depicting them as bubbles or streaks is possible. There are also foam deposits all over as a result of those bubbles. Just is what it is.
I’ve had some success, I think, with various tick sprays. The kind you spray on clothes. Supposed to survive a few washings. Can’t say I’ve done a blind study but seem to collect fewer of them since I started using it.
