A Minnesota North Shore Creek (4)

Another version of

href="http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6509964&size=lg">this

image

. Cropped more tightly, and shot at a higher ISO that

permitted a faster shutter speed - I think it gives more definition to

the flow of the water. What do you think?

I agree, gets you more motion in the water. A very good stream capture and natural shot.

I disagree; I don't see much difference in the rendering of the water, and I prefer the shot where more water can be seen.

Unfortunately, in the daily grind (job) that pays the bills, I am forced to be literal at all times. That is perhaps why I love photography and enjoy the images presented here on PN so much, they are open books of expression. I think Stephen and I both answered your literal question, yes, there is difference in the motion of the water, and in my case, I believe that to be positive. The second part of my response would certainly apply to both images without preference, they are both natural (reflecting nature and unmolested by extreme PS), pleasant, great DOF and have excellent light; and foremost the posting caught and held my attention. You can display either proudly. Thanks for sharing... Mike

Crop or full frame, vertical or horizontal, color or B&W, fast or slow shutter, shallow or deep DOF, square or rectangular, and should I even mention digital or film? Yes, there is a bit of room for subjectivity and differences of opinion. My own images that I think are terrific are sometimes panned, while others that I wonder about posting sometimes receive rave reviews. I'm still searching for that equation....

:-) Searching for the Holy Grail... I've noticed the same paradox but I don't have a clue for a solution; I just enjoy the diversity of capture and from the successes and the norm I believe I learn from observation. Merry Christmas.... Mike

 

Thanks for your comments guys:-)

 

  I'll tell you, I almost missed this spot. It was my last day along the Minnesota North Shore, and it had been three, miserable, rainy days. I had just had breakfast and was ready to head home without any more photo ops. But knowing I wasn't on a time schedule, I decided to go across the road and see if I could get a few good shots of the Beaver River (Beaver Bay, MN) before leaving.

  I had to carefully hike down through a steeply forested river bank to get to the mighty river and falls. And along the way, I spotted this little creek that was winding its way through the woods and down to the river. Well, knowing thousands of people already had pictures of Beaver River Falls, I immediately gave my full attention to the creek instead and started looking for a good vantage point.

  I spent the next hour there taking shot after shot, first with my 17-40 wide angle lens and then with my 70-200 telephoto. This shot, and the other one, were taken around 80-85mm, and in retrospect I think I personally enjoy these shots the most; I had re-evaluated the scene several times by then and found what really fascinated me. My main concern was dof, and I was trying to also hang in there with low noise (low ISO). Well, with my ND and warming filters, that put my shutter speed in some very long numbers (about 5-8 seconds). I was concerned that might blur the water too much, so I also experimented with taking the ISO up through several steps. This shot was an ISO 1250, and the shutter speed was .3sec. To my eye the faster shutter speed gives the water a more textured flow.

 

Anyway, thank you both for your insightful comments and discussion. Wishing you both a very Merry Christmas! -Dave