I took a circular trip around Loch Tummel the other day, finishing at Loch Rannoch. The weather was somewhat blowy, and I wasn’t satisfied with my hand held shot, so I went back to the car and got out my tripod and filters and took a long exposure shot.
One often hears that such shots are clichéd, but in this case I find the long exposure more satisfying. Opinions?
Blurring waves with long exposure is kind of one of the first use case that comes to mind.
I find the framing, subject and the edit fairly classic, the long exposure one is more centred on the subject which align well with the background symmetry. Seeing the pebbles feels like a plus as well. On the first photo the framing feels a bit less elaborate.
That’s all these reasons that makes, IMO the second one better, not especially the long exposure on itself alone, even if the smoothed out water distract less from the points of interest (the subject and background).
I think the edits are a little underwhelming but maybe realism is what you are after ! 
I dislike the waxy appearance of water long exposure often produces. I also don’t like featureless waterfall images.
For shots of lakes, when the water appears smooth and still, but not waxy, I like the effect.
On your shots, I like the normal shot of the water, but the softer sky of the long-exposure shot.
Those are just my personal preferences, though. If I were you, I’d just do what I like, and ignore whatever the others say, unless you want to make a living from selling images.
It is interesting that I have a 100% opposite view to @kofa I prefer the soft water because my eyes focus on the rocks. But I like that people have different views.
Interesting comparison. I prefer the composition of the second one. It is clear what the subject is, and there is some more foreground interest with the small stones. However, the smoothed water takes up a lot of the frame without providing any interest and I’m personally not a fan of what this length of exposure does to the clouds. On balance, I prefer the first image, and the reasons are related to what long exposure did to the second image.
What elGordo said.
I think the long exposure shot is not a cliche. True, the technique is as old as photography, but it is used here in a non-cliched way.
The first photo has a wild sky and somewhat choppy water. The two elements work together, building an atmosphere of cold wind that I associate with Scottish lochs.
The second image has a similar sky but “calm” water. So there is contradiction between sky and water. A cliched version would have a calm sky, probably with a pretty sunset. The contradiction creates, for me, a feeling of tension, of something that needs resolution. The central rocks could almost be people, wading through the waxy water. I wonder what happens next? The camera is on a tripod, so how about using the timer so the photographer could walk across the frame. From left to right would be conventional, so how about right to left? Yes, the figure would be blurred, more ethereal than the eternal rocks.
My preference: the first image works well, creating a consistent atmosphere. The second is far more interesting.
For what it’s worth (and as a street photographer, I know next to nothing about landscape), I think both shots are great — they’re just great in different ways.
Same for me. The water is still but not cloudy as it often is in LES. But I prefer the sharp clouds of the short exposure.
I don’t think you can just label some technique as “cliche” or not, since it always depends on the application of that technique.
I have some blue hour water shots that I smoothed the water out with a long exposure and I think that smoothness complements the soft and relaxing blue/purple color palletee and the (attempted) harmonious composition. I don’t think rough/choppy water would work with these photos
I think there are worthy things to be explored in long exposure: transitory vs steady-state, texture contrasts, tempo. Blended exposures with reversed gradients, to show two time scales.
…and the whole ICM world.
Plus, water is not the only thing that can be long-exposed. Plus, you can have stop motion effects with your speed light. Plus, you can paint lighting effects in the dark with flashlights, etc. Plus, long exposure enables nightscapes… Mastering a good long exposure shot for any photographer is like a percussionist perfecting their flam in hopes of one day drumming the perfect flam-paradiddle. It’s a trick you don’t not want to have in your bag.
Last November, I went on a photography trip to Ireland with a friend. Unbeknownst to me beforehand, he was a real fan of long exposures, and I was the opposite. It was however Ireland in November, so our focus was the wild Atlantic crashing into the western shores.
It was striking just how different our pictures turned out. You can imagine how my shots emphasized the spray and the violence of the waves on rocks, whereas his expressed the undulations and currents in the water’s movements. Not “better” or “worse”, but pleasingly different.
And it went beyond the images, too. He saw these fascinating patterns in the eddies of the crashing waves that I neither experienced nor anticipated. Meanwhile, I caught the odd dolphin or bird that entirely escaped his attention.
Of course, his work involved a big, heavy DSLR on a tripod, unmoving for an hour per picture. While I flitted around handholding a small mirrorless camera (or three), trying different angles and exploring the area. It was a learning opportunity for the both of us, if not exactly the most compatible of combination.
We had the most interesting discussions about these different processes and the sorts of images they produced. Naturally, I set up my tripod as well, trying the occasional long exposure, while he tried running and gunning his huge Nikon. In both cases, with somewhat limited success and enthusiasm. That said, we both very much appreciated each others’ outcomes, and particularly how differently we ended up interpreting these same situations.
I tend to post images in the “Play Raw” category, but these aren’t particularly great shots. That wasn’t the point of posting them anyway. What I was more interested in doing was to generate a discussion, which I am pleased to say it has done.
If you would like to do something “non-realistic” with the images, then let me know and I will post one, or both, raw files.
I don’t usually venture into such discussions that warrant me giving an opinion… but here we go…
I very much prefer the look of the short exposure image; I hate those long exposure silky waterfall images; I want to see the edges of every drop.
However, I much prefer the composition of the second image; it is just a much more interesting image.
You need to go back, take the tripod, and try to replicate the composure of the second image, yet with the quicker shutter.
Then, take a long exposure image to brighten the scene.
Put the long exposure image on top of the short exposure and use a gradient mask to expose the brighter sky, yet preserve the crisp details in the foreground.
For what it’s worth, my 7DMkII stays on 1/1250 shutter speed and seldom gets changed unless it is to speed it up for an airplane or a flying bird.
Yes, I took the short-shutter speed shot and didn’t get the same location for the long-exposure.
I generally like to see some structure in the water, which is why my “long exposures” are usually in the order of a second or so, as shown in these pictures at Black Linn. I rarely push it out as far as 30s, which is what the exposure here was.
Ah, you’re one of those Canon people 
I haven’t managed to get back to Loch Rannoch, but there is an excellent waterfall at Black Linn,
So, I got out my tripod and took several pictures at different shutter speeds, from 1/1250s (the place is surrounded by trees, and sunlight rarely peeps through) down to 30s. To my mind the image with a shutter speed of 1/10s works best in this case.
