More like perhaps, but not like it. No representation is the real thing. Stopped water looks like stopped water...but at least one has patterns to look at.
I like the addition of time to an image
More like perhaps, but not like it. No representation is the real thing. Stopped water looks like stopped water...but at least one has patterns to look at.
I like the addition of time to an image
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
sorry to seem like a wet blanket (pardon the pun ) but none of the photographs posted / examples I have seen look "wet" to me.
what does wet look like to you, because it seems more like a conceptual thing to me, and a single photograph of moving or partially moving, still &c water really doesn't
give the illusion of "wet" it just looks like photographs of water.
I attempted to add streaks of grey by burning in slivers longer on white flowing water. It gives it more "texture" but not that wet shiny look.
The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
http://www.searing.photography
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Buy a Nikonos, and look at the water from below. On a less cynical and more practical note - try to keep some spontaneity and SPARKLE and REFLECTION in flowing water. Use your polarizing and grad filters for skeet shooting instead. It can be a delicate balancing act. Most of the flowing water pictures I see on forums are pretty darn stale stereotypes. The proper shutter speed is relative to the rate of flow itself, so never a constant recipe, and it's also a logistical problem in terms of adequate depth of field and so forth with larger format film. And yeah, the web is a miserable tool for trying to evaluate actual results in print. But just soooo many waterfall images I see on the web, and even in picture books, look way too similar to each other - same predictable strategies. And I really don't care if I start a pie fight stating that. It's true. Break some of the formulaic rules, please. Water should be magical, not just yet another predictable postcard.
Last edited by Drew Wiley; 11-Nov-2023 at 10:41.
For me, the presence of reflections or highlights gives a good idea of "wet," whether it is water or a wet object such as a stone or other surface. Foam helps indicate moving water, not sure if it says"wet."
Dang it, now you have me searching through my photos to see if I happen to have such an image. What do think? Maybe. I'll keep looking for a b&w.
hansonwaves(8870)04 copy by Thad Gerheim, on Flickr
Thad Gerheim
Website: http:/thadgerheimgallery.com
Rockpool, Noosa National Park
Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa Classic VC FB photographic paper, image size 16.3cm X 21.5cm, from a 4x5 Kodak Tmax 400 negative
exposed in a Tachihara 45GF field view camera fitted with a Schneider Super Angulon 90mm f8 lens.
When water shows a bright line edge meniscus it announces itself as fluid and perhaps, on a generous assessment, even wet.
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".
Thad Gerheim
Website: http:/thadgerheimgallery.com
Bookmarks