Long-Exposure Landscapes......you like?

Long-Exposure Landscapes......you like?

  • I love long-exposure landscapes.

    Votes: 24 64.9%
  • Long-exposure landscapes give me motion sickness.

    Votes: 4 10.8%
  • Meh....landscapes are boring usually, regardless of exposure.

    Votes: 9 24.3%

  • Total voters
    37
c) an intermediary setting which balances motion blur with some detail, usually in the range of 1 to 1/60s (depending on the flow rate) – this was commonly advised in old photography textbooks; easiest to use effectively.

I prefer this ^

I don't like very long exposures where water movement literally appears like an abstract and out of place but I also don't like to see static water when I know the water is actually flowing.

When comparing water vs non-water long exposures, I prefer the latter.

I did not find an appropriate option to vote.
 
I like water as an element in photos. I like reflections; I like rippled/textured reflections, I like blur to show movement, etc. I like most of what you can do with water.

I really like Lynn's photos. The middle one is incredible!

- Murray
 
They can be great, like any other "genre" shot, if done well. The images above by LynnB blow me away. Those seagulls? Holy Cow! Just terrific stuff. Poorly done they are as boring as any other technical fail.

One of the things I like best about photography is the ability it gives us to show the world beyond the limits of our ordinary sensory capabilities. Long exposures, really short exposures, panoramics that take in more than the sweep of a normal set of eyes, macro photography, tele photography, time lapse photography, pinhole photogrpahy . . . each of these can show us more of the world than we can see in a fleeting glance. Having said this, not many of us are as good as a Sugimoto . . .
 
Sometimes, there is no choice:

Untitled-4-mod.jpg


Other times, on film, colors can become interesting:

7086032_7086032-r6-e194.jpg


Roland.
 
Back
Top Bottom