New camera, new filters, new tripod...lets see if they were a worthy investment

[mikekelley]

50D, 10-20, 6 stop ND and carbon fiber tripod that is completely unnecessary =

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3320/3608796697_76080d0c2d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/3608796325_99f98e3569_b.jpg

[Flo]

Worth it:D

[spirith]

Love the second one. It looks like it's tipped slightly to the left though. The first one looks slightly blown, but if it's darker, you'd lose the boats. Try HDR?

[tonydee]

Way too much dynamic range in these. I'm not a fan of the blur that the slow shutter speed in #1 has created from the clouds.

Would be a good idea to post your EXIF data - the downsized JPEG seems a touch soft but I've less clues to diagnose diffraction from an overly small aperture (given your large DOF) vs movement during a slow shutter speed. You can check this sort of thing more easily at 100% view though.

There appears to be some banding in the sky. Just curious: did you shoot JPEGs, or edit in GIMP? 8-bit colour channels are more prone to banding during post-processing....

For #2, the right side is too empty to balance the left. No solution, but consider cropping from the right, bottom right corner to be one full board-width right of the rope....

Cheers, Tony

[mikekelley]

I shot RAW and edited in photoshop. For some reason photoshop just could not do a good bw conversion with the method i was using. Here's a sepia version that came out a bit better with regards to artifacts and banding in the sky.

Im curious about your thoughts re: dynamic range. All single exposures, no HDR, I tried to get as much in as I could. They were f/13 at 12 seconds.

HEre's the sepia:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3608860173_a76c247dcf_b.jpg

[CROW21]

i like the sephia better .

[Grimage]

I shot RAW and edited in photoshop. For some reason photoshop just could not do a good bw conversion with the method i was using. Here's a sepia version that came out a bit better with regards to artifacts and banding in the sky.

Im curious about your thoughts re: dynamic range. All single exposures, no HDR, I tried to get as much in as I could. They were f/13 at 12 seconds.

HEre's the sepia:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3608860173_a76c247dcf_b.jpg

regarding the second one I would like to tell that I prefer the sepia conversion too. Also I can tell your equipment has been worth it, as it is in great hands! Great job! :)

[Grimage]

Ah btw which ND filter did you use?

[Stutterbug]

I really like the first one a lot. Love the silky smoothness! Great buy!

[mikekelley]

Thanks for the comments everyone!

Ah btw which ND filter did you use?

This was the filter I used:

http://www.adorama.com/BW77ND64X.html

[tonydee]

I shot RAW and edited in photoshop. For some reason photoshop just could not do a good bw conversion with the method i was using. Here's a sepia version that came out a bit better with regards to artifacts and banding in the sky.

That's a weird one. Guess you could redo the monochrome if you're keen on it, but the sepia came out a treat.

Im curious about your thoughts re: dynamic range. All single exposures, no HDR, I tried to get as much in as I could. They were f/13 at 12 seconds.

It's just that you're shooting towards the sun. Shooting RAW helps a little (it records whatever the camera can capture rather than just what JPEG keeps, with it's standardised contrast curve and black and white points). Still, there's just too much contrast between the brightest parts of the sky and some of the shadow regions. In #1, a significant part of the image is completely blown white (check your histogram), while the undersides of boats are quite dull and low contrast (given they're not actually black, they may be able to be effectively lifted in Photoshop, but such post-processing on darker parts of the image is more prone to reveal noise). I can't say for sure whether the original exposure has these overexposed regions, or they've come out during the RAW import and/or post-processing. #2 has come out noticably better though... was it taken a few minutes later perhaps? Or it could be that you exposed better (less exposure) or handled it more successfully in import/post....

Anyway, it's always a risk shooting towards the sun, especially without High Dynamic Range treatment. It can also yield some more interesting photos sometimes, so I'm not saying give up on it either, but you'll want to manage these issues very aggressively.

Somehow, before I was seriously into photography I didn't find blown areas as bothersome, but then I think impressions change as you educate your eye, seeing shots with and without and appreciating the difference. Or it could just be I've bought a 400cd/m^2 (i.e. bright) monitor :-P. I used to generally dislike shallow depth of field shots too :-). Funny.

Cheers, Tony

[daytonadays]

Love the second one. It looks like it's tipped slightly to the left though. Agreed.

And it's better than the sepia tone IMHO..... more moody, & in the sepia one my eye is drawn to reading the figures on the pump.

I think you'll make the camera a very worthy investment.

regards