tyronet2000 wrote:
I'm pleased you posted these images Maria, because as someone has said there has been a lot of useful feedback. Thanks for sharing.

Horst wrote:
Hello Maria, I can' help it, but I really like the first of the 2 pictures.

I also think it gains a lot for being in b&W.
Why? Because to me it looks somewhat abstract and it isn't trying to look as part of a landscape.

In colour, I think the rocks would have distracted from the smooth , soft look you managed to give it.

It also has the varying lovely shades of white and gray all blending in to each other.

Great stuff.

Regards, Horst

Horst wrote:
Hello Maria, I can' help it, but I really like the first of the 2 pictures.

I also think it gains a lot for being in b&W.
Why? Because to me it looks somewhat abstract and it isn't trying to look as part of a landscape.

In colour, I think the rocks would have distracted from the smooth , soft look you managed to give it.

It also has the varying lovely shades of white and gray all blending in to each other.

Great stuff.

Regards, Horst

Horst wrote:
Hello Maria, I can' help it, but I really like the first of the 2 pictures.

I also think it gains a lot for being in b&W.
Why? Because to me it looks somewhat abstract and it isn't trying to look as part of a landscape.

In colour, I think the rocks would have distracted from the smooth , soft look you managed to give it.

It also has the varying lovely shades of white and gray all blending in to each other.

Great stuff.

Regards, Horst

davidstorm wrote:
Nothing to do with the images, but it seems to me that you have attracted a lot of very useful comments in this thread Maria, lots of people giving their advice and help. I think this speaks volumes for you and for the impact your images have had on this website; the Gallery in particular.

Keep at it and keep posting your fantastic images.

Regards
David

alfpics wrote:
I'm in agreement that they lack a focal point. Having said that, the rock that is there could be made more central, and then have a play to get the 'sweep' of the blurred water to fill the frame around it in a more complete way. Just my 2p worth!
edit; the colour version of the first shot on your facebook page looks much better IMO, but still needs a bit more of a focal point

thingsthatihaveseen wrote:
Hi Maria

Think I remember you posting one of these in colour a while back...

My thoughts for what they're worth as follows: seems to me that by removing the colour, using a filter to blur the water, and taking away the context of the scene by focussing in on specific elements (ie not showing the wide view), you're deliberately removing them from the realm of straight "realism/naturalism", if you see what I mean (no problem there)...

I'm wondering if your intention/interest is a full on abstract maybe, or a photograph with a bit more of a narrative (or quite possibly something else entirely)...

As an abstract, for me the first has promise, in that removing the colour from the scene has removed a fair amount of its representational meaning (ie, it's not immediately obvious for instance that it's an autumn scene), leaving a fair few shapes and textures, which of themselves, can be quite interesting (although maybe a bit more of a clearly defined pattern between the elements might still help)...

If you're after a more standard photograph, of these two, for me the second seems to have more promise, as it has a clearer compostional "narrative" if you see what I mean... a "one vs many" kind of a thing... large foreground rock vs other smaller rocks in the top of the frame... this for me has more compositional focus than the first...

Have been experimenting myself with different strength nd filters over the last couple of years on streams etc... As Michael says above, streams can be tricky in that they're directional (unlike lakes and to a lesser extent the sea)... there's always some residual movement in them... what the filters determine is how much, and what shape/texture... my current thing (no doubt it will change shortly) is to try to look for enough strength in the filters to help simplify the composition, whilst still using the moving water trails/highlights to try to join important compositional elements up...

Hope that helps... do keep experimenting with it... am sure you'll find a way to make it work for you...

Best

michaelblue wrote:
I agree with the above comments about there being no focal point to concentrate our attention.
If I may make a suggestion........or two:
1) Look for features in the water like small waterfalls and whirlpools, large rocks and weed, anything that breaks up the flow of water.
2) Try different shutter speeds, 1/4 sec, 1/2 sec, or 1 second can sometimes make all the difference to this type of image.
For me, using a 'Big Stopper' filter doesn't work with running water, much better with 'stillwater' images.

To illustrate my point there are a couple of examples in my gallery

I hope this helps Maria

derek897 wrote:
Hi Maria, very good for your first attempt you have, managed to smooth the water out.
We're you using a filter to block some of the light or just a smaller f stop. ?
The shots do seem to be lacking a focal point of some sort. Maybe a wider shot to take in some surroundings, and or a lower angle of view, lower the tripod so that you are not looking down at the water. I'm no expert but I do like and have some of these in my p/f if you want to have a look at the settings that were used it might help too.
Don't give up on it.
Derek