Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 30 Nov 2013 (Saturday) 08:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

seascapes

 
nittaya
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
122 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: dubai
     
Dec 11, 2013 10:29 |  #16

sirquack wrote in post #16518671 (external link)
I would do the same to the first one. The colors of the clouds and the sky in #1 are kind of bland. If you used a graduated filter in the sky only and dropped the exposure and increased contrast I think it would really make the sky pop.

i would like to use gnd filters but good ones are expensive i had in the past used cokin
gnd filters but did not like the red color cast it gives . though depending on the sky
that kind of color cast looks nice sometimes. i will try to reprocess the first and the
third shot again increasing the contrasts and saturation to make the sky pop.
Thank you very much for the suggestions.:)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nittaya
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
122 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: dubai
     
Dec 11, 2013 10:30 |  #17

1ceblu3 wrote in post #16518763 (external link)
Nice shots, I really like the first one!

thank you very much for liking::)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sirquack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,590 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 925
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
     
Dec 11, 2013 12:40 |  #18

What application are you using to do your processing? Many of them have simulated graduated filter options that can be applied after the image is taken to make it seem as though a filter was used during the shot.
I use Lightroom and it has the ability to selectively apply a filter in that manner. Depending on what you are using, it is possible your application will do something similar.


Name is Ron.
Bodies - 6D/5D3/7D2-Gripped
Lenses - Canon 17-40 F4/24-70 F2.8 II/85 F1.8/Canon 70-200 F2.8 II/F4/Sigma 30 DC/Tamron 150-600
Website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cerett
Senior Member
821 posts
Likes: 228
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Santa Ana, California
     
Dec 18, 2013 10:06 as a reply to  @ sirquack's post |  #19

I like all of them! Great job!


https://www.martinfeld​manphotography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1045
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Dec 18, 2013 20:18 as a reply to  @ cerett's post |  #20

So, it's always a little difficult to critique. These are good enough that I feel like I want to say something, but first I want to put it in perspective.

I am a stickler for 'balance' in my landscapes.

So given that (and many would not take the same view), I find that #2 and #3 while 'good' feel unbalanced to me. If you are interested I will take the time to explain, it's definitely a personal thing. (And I'm NOT talking about rule of thirds or anything like that).

On a different subject, did you try different shutter speeds? I'm definitely not great with sea myself, so I don't really have advice on that or comment on whether you might have used longer or shorter speeds, but I would try different ones to get the look you want.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nittaya
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
122 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: dubai
     
Dec 19, 2013 09:25 |  #21

ejenner wrote in post #16538381 (external link)
So, it's always a little difficult to critique. These are good enough that I feel like I want to say something, but first I want to put it in perspective.

I am a stickler for 'balance' in my landscapes.

So given that (and many would not take the same view), I find that #2 and #3 while 'good' feel unbalanced to me. If you are interested I will take the time to explain, it's definitely a personal thing. (And I'm NOT talking about rule of thirds or anything like that).

On a different subject, did you try different shutter speeds? I'm definitely not great with sea myself, so I don't really have advice on that or comment on whether you might have used longer or shorter speeds, but I would try different ones to get the look you want.

yes , i am interested in your views. please feel free . i tried my best to represent the scene as it looked.The weather was unusually very good.these are digitally blended pictures that is to say i shot them all at iso100 f16 and shutter speed was varying from 1 or 2 second to 15 seconds. i used the sky of underexposed shots and foreground of those overexposed shots which had better looking waves. The digital blending that i did was straight forward (i.e) in photoshop i used gradiant (black to white) for masking .




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nittaya
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
122 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: dubai
     
Dec 19, 2013 09:37 |  #22

sirquack wrote in post #16519152 (external link)
What application are you using to do your processing? Many of them have simulated graduated filter options that can be applied after the image is taken to make it seem as though a filter was used during the shot.
I use Lightroom and it has the ability to selectively apply a filter in that manner. Depending on what you are using, it is possible your application will do something similar.

these are digitally blended shots. my friends use gnd filters , results they get is sometimes too good sky sometimes not so good depending on weather condition.
i guess blocking too much light using gnd filters have also drawbacks.For seascapes what i do is take one underexposed shot for the sky and few overexposed shots for the foreground and then when postprocessing i use sky from the underexposed shots and foreground from overexposed (those overexposed shots which have better waves). for masking i use black to white gradiant in the photoshop. so digital blending that i do is very simple one.

For these shots i used ND8 filter (no gnd).

for raw processing i use phase one capture one pro 5. usually i tweak raw files very little like adjusting white balance, recovering highlights and little bit of adjusting contrasts and
saturation .most of the enhancement i do in photoshop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1045
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Dec 19, 2013 22:36 |  #23

nittaya wrote in post #16539549 (external link)
yes , i am interested in your views. please feel free . i tried my best to represent the scene as it looked.The weather was unusually very good.these are digitally blended pictures that is to say i shot them all at iso100 f16 and shutter speed was varying from 1 or 2 second to 15 seconds. i used the sky of underexposed shots and foreground of those overexposed shots which had better looking waves. The digital blending that i did was straight forward (i.e) in photoshop i used gradiant (black to white) for masking .

The blending looks good and is what I would have done. Basically try to keep the sky shots close in time to the wave shots, but take say a sky shot every 2-3 minutes and between them take a bunch of wave shots at different shutter speeds and blend the best.

So hopefully these illustrations will convey my opinion and some of how I approach landscape composition. Note that there are plenty of 'pro' shots that are very popular that I dislike the 'balance' of. Also the best 'book' on composition I have found is Ian Plant's ebook: http://www.ianplant.co​m …he-art-of-composition.htm (external link).

OK, so the first shot. What I see are the two main 'subjects', one in the sky and one in the foreground marked in red. These are both on the left side and 'static' in that they are in an almost vertical line. The next elements are the light parts, the sky and wave, again vertically aligned. If they were on the left they *might* balance the key subjects, but likely not IMO. last you have a very dark area, in green that to me is quite prominent, again on the right. So a lot of visual weight over the right side. The left part on the other hand, particularly where I would want something to balance that dark area in 'visual weight' (marked also in green) is a nothing.

Finally you have beautiful curves (yellow), but again they lead me straight to the high visual impact areas on the right and it kind of traps me there.

Obviously I don't know what the options were, but I would have tried to place something prominent, like that rock, in that lower left corner, rather than the lower right. It may also have moved some of those other elements such that they were more diagonal.

The second image is just taken the first, flipped it and blended. I'm not suggesting you do this in PP, but is more what I'd be looking for in a composition. You may or may not agree, but to my eye the second looks better 'balanced'. Of course I realise we can't shape nature to our desires, but thats the fun of landscapes and I think makes seascapes particularly challenging because the shore and wave motion often conspire against 'balancing an image'.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1045
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Dec 19, 2013 22:49 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #24

For the second image I had in mind, you essentially have lots of nice gold color (and again IMO the highest visual weight elements) both on the left. Blue with high luminosity on the right. I realize the light from the sky is going to shine down onto the right, but I would have at least tried to place the gold elements on a diagonal and then tried to find something to balance the light in the sky (and coming into the foreground) with something on the left. This is where with the right subject and good planing a bit of PP can also work magic - i.e. find something that when lightened (if necessary) will work to balance the light in the sky.

Again I realize if you'd moved you wouldn't had the pool, but I think it is a sacrifice I would have made. Similarly just flipping the shore IMO creates a bit more balance, although to make this an A+ image I think it would still need some dodging and burning to direct the viewer around the frame. I would agree with anyone that said it still doesn't quite 'work' looking at it again - a bit too 'crisscross-y'. And of course not having the main elements exactly diagonal, but sill putting interesting things in the frame - breaking the 'norm' - while still getting 'balance' is what can really keep interest. Easier said than done in the field for sure. I'm not sure I described that very well.

Hope this helps, and if you are at all a fan of Ian Plant I can highly recommend his ebook (no 'rules of thirds' or other 'rules' nonsense). It's quite a bit more than a beginners composition book.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1045
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Dec 19, 2013 23:05 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #25

I'm going to do one more, the first one. Primarily because it breaks the 'rule of thirds' but I think it is 'balanced'. A point here is that the fame probably shouldn't be perfectly balanced because that's kind of boring (or can be).

So first off the element with the largest visual weight is almost in the center of the frame. Almost being good - right in the middle could be not so good. Still it's nowhere near the 'rule of thirds' crossings.

To balance that you have rocks on both sides creating a very powerful triangle than makes the image stable at the bottom.

The the lightness in the waves draws me from the rocks to the high weight area of the sky. Although the left part of the sky doesn't have much going on I don't think it needs to. The rocks, especially the one in the middle is strong enough to draw attenuation back.

Once I'd gone round this once or twice, I feel 'comfortable' and start exploring other elements such as the other rocks and those under the water in the foreground.

So basically I think this is a good example of breaking the rule of thirds. I also like the horizon right where it is. One might be tempted to say 'not much sky, crop some off the top, put the horizon exactly 1/3 of the way down'. Personally I just tried it and I think you got it spot on - IMO it needs space above that bright area. Plus the blue sky shape (light blue) is a similar rounded shape as the darker area in the foreground.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nittaya
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
122 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: dubai
     
Dec 20, 2013 08:57 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #26

that was very detail analysis. All what you have mentioned about composition leading lines , empty spaces etc are very valid. to be honest i never thought of these things except rule of third in crude form (sky 1/3rd foreground remaining 2/3rd and little bit of leading lines with out paying attention where they should lead the eyes to).

i really appreciate the time you spend to closely scrutiny the pictures and edit them.Thanks for the link http://www.ianplant.co​m/ebook-visual...omposition.ht​m (external link)

i will go again and read few time more what you mentioned plus looking at my other seascape pictures and pictures of seascapes of pro photographers to work out
how to compose properly.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,555 views & 0 likes for this thread
seascapes
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is raytracer
997 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.