farlymac
PF McFarland
Putting my head on the chopping block again. Two photos, same subject, different shutter speeds. Which one works for you, and why doesn't the other.
Tinker Creek_4 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Tinker Creek_5 by br1078phot, on Flickr
PF
Tinker Creek_4 by br1078phot, on Flickr
Tinker Creek_5 by br1078phot, on Flickr
PF
xwhatsit
Well-known
The second one, more because of the exposure than strictly the shutter speed. The shadows have more definition. I take it you did use a longer shutter speed but didn't adjust the aperture by an equal amount?
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
1st one looks under-developed.
elshaneo
Panographer
Second one looks better to me, and it has less clutter 
sjw617
Panoramist
I like # 1 because of the water texture, but it is a bit dark. # 2 is washed out and the water has no interest. Shutter speed of # 1 and exposure between #1 and #2 would be great.
Steve
Steve
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I like the first one better. The second is overexposed according to my taste. It might be that I had liked #2 better if it had been exposed like #1.
Disregarding exposure, and concentrating on OP's question of the preferred shutter speed, I like the effect of #2 better, as it smooths the water patterns and concentrates the view on the sharp stationary objects. I agree the effect in #1 increases visual "clutter".
farlymac
PF McFarland
Thanks for all the input.
Number 1 is a bit too dark, but that was my fault in post-processing of the scans. I was going for the black ink look for the water, and forgot to keep an eye out on the rocks.
Number 2 doesn't have the look I was going for in the water. It appears to be crude oil to me. As for the exposure, I'm not sure if the shutter is at all acurate, or the meter (a BEWI Piccilo) I was using. For extra credit, try to guess the camera. Hint: It is a rangefinder.
You can see the rest of the set on Flickr by clicking on either photo. Shot on Ilford HP4 Plus 125. Scanned comercially.
PF
Number 1 is a bit too dark, but that was my fault in post-processing of the scans. I was going for the black ink look for the water, and forgot to keep an eye out on the rocks.
Number 2 doesn't have the look I was going for in the water. It appears to be crude oil to me. As for the exposure, I'm not sure if the shutter is at all acurate, or the meter (a BEWI Piccilo) I was using. For extra credit, try to guess the camera. Hint: It is a rangefinder.
You can see the rest of the set on Flickr by clicking on either photo. Shot on Ilford HP4 Plus 125. Scanned comercially.
PF
Trooper
Well-known
I like the first one by far. It is only slightly too dark, but it shows the force of the water and presents a foreboding feel. The second one is too tranquil, either because of the longer exposure or the lack of contrast.
pagpow
Well-known
I get the issue of exposure, but I like the first one more, in terms of what the shutter speed does -- it provides more texture (I don't take it as clutter) and provides more interesting detailed water flows.