Waterfall with Slow shutterspeed

[Bo_]

I am on holiday in Austria - but the weather is not so nice (for taking landscapepictures- anyhow) - because it is raining!
But today we were in Kaprun at the dam (Kaprun Hochgebirgstausee. When we parked the car in the parking-house(?) I spotted a stream (waterfall)! Now I could set up my camera inside - in a parking space without getting wet! (another nice thing - the camera parking was for free). So I took a couple of pictures with a slow shutterspeed (1/6 -2.5 sec).

But the question is now - which one is better - slow or real slow?


EXIF: 1/6sec. f/8, iso:100, at 55mm


EXIF: 2.5sec f/32, iso:100, at 55mm

[private]

I prefer the first one - the rocks kind of look like glass and you can really "see" the flow of the water.

[lputman]

I prefer the first one too. I like seeing the water movement.

[Chip]

I prefer the shorter exposure, too.

But the second one is nicely done. The water has an almost surreal, dream-like quality. And, it's not what I'm used to seeing in a waterfall shot. Different can be good.

Very nice job framing this shot, too.

[genielamb]

my vote is for the first one as well. The second looks a little surreal

[windrider86]

I like the first one the best. Doesnt anyone beleive in shooting water to show motion? This one is a happy medium

[dakwegmo]

I actually prefer the second one. I think the surreal water effect adds a little something more to the scene than just what was there. It conveys more emotion to me than does the first one. Both however are very nice shots.

[Up North Photos]

I'm in agreement with windrider 86 it's nice to use intended blur on moving water but I like to see the water moving. So the first is my choice.