On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:10:37 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:


This is the way it looks in real life:

http://www.fs.fed.us/conf/ne-ga-wate...ha-falls.shtml

This slide show shows how an amateur can screw up perfection:

http://outdoors.webshots.com/slideshow/568959352vWicBu

Well, you got the last part right anyway.

I've been guilty of this myself so I can safely say this technique is
way over used for routine imaging.

The whole point of using slower shutter speeds is to invoking water
"movement" and not replicate fire hose type streams of uninteresting
water flow. Done properly, you really don't need to use slower speeds
- just focal length and proper exposures.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=10461

Shorter times produce images which convey more impression than actual
replication like this:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=22928

To properly use longer times, you have to at least have an idea of
where you will be taking the image and what you are trying to convey.

For example:

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=35667

And then there are the impressionistic type of images that echo the
true style of light, color and movement in classically open style.

http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=39529

Also, I'd be interested if you shot these in RAW and what compression
ratio you used when you brought them out into .jpeg. Just looking a
little closer at them, it seems to me that something was lost in the
translation. Maybe a defraction issue? Did you use auto sharpen on
bringing them out to .jpeg? Something isn't right.

Finally, I think you're trying too hard with this lanscape thing - let
the image speak to you before you try to shoot it. Think about where
you want it to go and what you want to do with it. What is it telling
you? It just seems that you took shots to take shots.

Sorry - you asked. :)