Wind movement in scenes especially with large format photography

[MartyNL]

You see and hear photographers waiting hours until the wind has died down to just about non-existent before pressing the shutter release. So much so, that you'd think it has become an endurance sport!

And I even catch myself doing it, from time to time! But is it really necessary?

I'm wondering where this aesthetic has come from or if it's just a vestige of a time and era when materials were much slower than today?

Personally, I really don't mind some photographic blur and often find a completely static scene too contrived and stilted. And by the same token, I recognise that there are always exceptions such as water reflections or a detail study etc.
But generally speaking, with this practice, are we not doing ourselves and our scenes a disservice by abandoning a sense of motion and naturalness?
Is it not time for LF photographers to embrace the elements, stop faffing and use their time more wisely, like, take more pictures!

[j.e.simmons]

When I shot 8x10 with a shutterless lens and everything at f64 and 1 second or more, I included the word wind in my titles, i.e., Live Oaks and Wind, Little Talbot Island.

[Richard Wasserman]

I've always liked the effects of wind in landscape photos and have often used the slowest possible shutter speed to that end

[Alan9940]

I don't mind the look of wind in my photos, but I choose a shutter speed long enough to make the movement obvious in the final print. A little bit of blurriness just makes it look like you didn't focus properly, etc. IMO, anyway.

[Bruce Watson]

You see and hear photographers waiting hours until the wind has died down to just about non-existent before pressing the shutter release. So much so, that you'd think it has become an endurance sport!

And I even catch myself doing it, from time to time! But is it really necessary?

It is not really necessary. Photography isn't really necessary. Art isn't really necessary. People do it, or don't do it, because that's what they want. Other peoples' choices are not under our control. Difficult as that might be to accept, we just have to learn to live with it.

[Dugan]

I don't mind the look of wind in my photos, but I choose a shutter speed long enough to make the movement obvious in the final print. A little bit of blurriness just makes it look like you didn't focus properly, etc. IMO, anyway.

I agree.
Wind motion in a photo is sorta like water motion...
Not enough, it looks like you didn't focus properly.
Too much, it looks 'overblown'...
It's a Goldilocks predicament.

[CreationBear]

If you’ve not already, check out John Blakemore’s work—conveying the effects of motion in both wind and water was a preoccupation of his in many of his series.

[Doremus Scudder]

If you don't want wind motion in your image, then you have to do something. Waiting works sometimes. There are other work-arounds like rethinking the image so you can use a larger aperture and a faster shutter speed. If the wind is coming in gusts, you can sometimes do a series of shorter exposures when things are still and build up to the final, longer, exposure (I use this for people and vehicles too).

Of course, we can rethink the image to include the movement. Or come back later, or just not make the exposure in the first place.

What matters is the image you're after.

Doremus

[Vaughn]

...
What matters is the image you're after. Doremus

[Heroique]

Vaughn, a beautiful shot using breeze to your advantage.

Your subject matter is so light and delicate, it may never have a moment of stillness!

Have you ever returned to try?