How to Photograph Flowing Water Realistically

Tuesday 6 May 2025, 19:19 by Nando Harmsen | 3,599 views | 2 comments

This article was translated from Dutch with the help of AI. Read the original.

There are several ways to photograph flowing or moving water. But what is a realistic way to do it? Should you choose a fast shutter speed, or not? Is there a clear answer?

I like photographing with long shutter speeds. Sometimes extremely long to create a minimalist or even a kind of fine-art look. Sometimes relatively short to capture the dynamics of the water. Or is an extremely fast shutter speed needed?

A fast shutter speed freezes movement. This was taken at 1/6400s, so there is no motion blur in the water. It shows the unrest in the water caused by the storm beautifully.
An extremely fast shutter speed will freeze the movement of the water. It can be so fast that every drop is not only visible, but also free from motion blur. Some people think this is the right way to photograph water.

I once gave a presentation or lecture about photographing water. Among those present was someone who thought you needed a fast shutter speed to make it realistic. Long shutter speeds did not show reality.

A fast shutter speed at a rapid. The water does not move in the photo, which distorts reality. This was taken at 1/160sec.
Others in the audience replied that 'frozen' water was not realistic either. Drops do not hang in the air. There is movement, so freezing it in a photo is not reality either.

So what is the right way to photograph moving water? Should you freeze the movement, or not? I think there is no clear answer to this question. It all depends on what you want to show.

A somewhat longer shutter speed shows that the water is moving. I find this more realistic than 'frozen water'. This was taken at 1/10sec.
Sometimes you want to capture the dynamics. The path the water takes between rocks and across the land. You then choose a shutter speed that makes this possible. You show the movement of the water.

Sometimes you do not want to show any movement. There are two ways to do this. With an extremely long shutter speed that removes all movement. Or with an extremely short shutter speed to show every drop.

A waterfall says enough: the water is falling. Freezing the movement does not always give a realistic image. This was taken at 1/13sec.
You could say that neither case shows reality. Water is not frozen in time, or without visible movement. Perhaps a shutter speed somewhere in between comes closest to reality.

What do you think is the right way to photograph water? Frozen in time, or not? Or does it depend on the situation? Let us know in a comment below this post.

Share: WhatsApp Facebook

About the author

Nando Harmsen has been photographing for more than 40 years. He specialises in wedding photography and landscape photography. Nando also gives talks, workshops, masterclasses and photo trips, and regularly reviews new and interesting equipment.

Flowing Water and Choosing the Shutter Speed
by Nando Harmsen
Flash photography tip: Freeze movement with your flash
by Elja Trum
From drip... to a real water droplet 💧
by Rob Zwart
Striking portraits with a water shoot
by Elja Trum
Portrait photography tip: Throw your model in the water
by Elja Trum
Video: Underwater photography without water
by Elja Trum

Show every article in Personal

home

2 comments

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 6 May 2025 at 19:33 | reply
Een tof artikel, Nando. In grote lijnen ben ik het met je eens. Ik was vorige maand in Monschau waar het riviertje de Roer door stroomt. Ik heb wat foto's gemaakt met 1/15sec. Het resultaat wat het water betreft, was ik best tevreden. Het kan natuurlijk altijd beter. Oefening baart kunst.
Ik heb ook eens foto's getrokken aan de Atlantische oceaan in Portugal. Daar sloegen de golven tegen de rotsen en spatten uiteen. Daar gebruikte ik een snelle sluitertijd om het moment van uiteenspatten vast te leggen.
Het ligt dus een beetje aan de situatie en wat je wilt laten zien.
Met extreem lange sluitertijd vind ik ook mooi, maar met water nog nooit gedaan. Zo ik er nu over denk, lijkt me een goede (minimale) compositie heel belangrijk zoals bijvoorbeeld bij de Zeelandbrug.
Ik ga meer doen met dit onderwerp.
Dank voor dit mooie artikel.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Liesbeth Verkade wrote on Tuesday 13 May 2025 at 19:44 | reply
Weer een duidelijke uitleg! Dank daarvoor. Je voorbeelden spreken voor zich. Ik merk dat mijn voorkeur duidelijk uitgaat naar een heel korte sluitertijd zoals bij de eerste foto. Wilde golven, een woeste stroom waar het water alle kanten op spat. Op de een of andere manier kan het andere me niet zo bekoren. Daarom zoek ik voor waterfoto's ook bewust die extremen op, of, een heel andere insteek, water dat heel stil is en een mooie spiegeling geeft.
This comment was written in another language and has not been translated yet.

Have your say

Please note: Articles older than a week can only be commented on by signed-in visitors.
Would you still like to comment? sign in or create a free account.

Elja Trum

Photofacts; everything to do with photography!

Would you like to take better photos and keep up with what is happening in photography? Photofacts publishes articles that teach you something about photography — from a product announcement to a practical shooting tip or a look at a website. Photofacts covers photography every day and is a hobby project of Elja Trum's that got out of hand. The articles are written by a team of volunteer authors. If you would enjoy writing one or more articles for Photofacts, do get in touch.More about Photofacts

Photofacts is made possible in part by

How to Photograph Flowing Water Realistically

About the author

You might also like

2 comments

Have your say

Photofacts; everything to do with photography!