Beach

Long exposure, 18 seconds, so the water dissolved to a mist. Don't know what much else to say except comment and critique welcome.

Rad

Canon 5d
18 sec
f/18
iso 100
60 mm (canon 28-135)

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

I love it.

Very Nice. this picture is worth hanging on the wall

No complaints. I'd hang it up.

Nice and simple

I like it, but I think it should be in B&W since there is really no good color to it.

I like this a lot!

Agreed. Well done.

Numenorean wrote in post #13397054
I like it, but I think it should be in B&W since there is really no good color to it.

I think I'm going to have to agree. I can't quite tell at the moment (sore/dry eyes) but it looks like a sepia effect to me - I could be wrong.

Thank you everyone for the very nice comments. As to the color, yes it is in fact a sepia tone monochrome (very lightly sepia toned). When I first saw it out of the camera I didn't have too high hopes for it, as I have been practicing with a nine stop neutral density filter, in spite of the preview screen is still shooting kind of blind.

The original out of camera is posted below.

Rad

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

great pic. I also say try it in B&W.

The edited version is very nice; clean, simple and sharp. I'd print/hang it if I were you...

Stick with the sepia!!

Looks great! Only thing, and this isn't really a critique on the photo as much as a tip on long exposures, but my friend who likes to do a lot of long exposures likes to shoot fairly wide open and instead use a fader nd filter, just to increase sharpness lost due to aperture diffraction. I can't see anything of the likes, but apparently diffraction starts becoming evident around f/9 (varies based on camera and lens, but it's not very noticeable here).

andrew_patterson wrote in post #13402364
Looks great! Only thing, and this isn't really a critique on the photo as much as a tip on long exposures, but my friend who likes to do a lot of long exposures likes to shoot fairly wide open and instead use a fader nd filter, just to increase sharpness lost due to aperture diffraction. I can't see anything of the likes, but apparently diffraction starts becoming evident around f/9 (varies based on camera and lens, but it's not very noticeable here).

I took a look at the Fader filter website. As far as I can tell, the ability to adjust the amount of density based on turning the filter only makes sense if the filter is actually a pair of polarizing filters. That would make it a mixed bag for me.

I can see how it would be an advantage, have it set at minimal density to compose, then maximum to shoot. But on the other hand, you are now adding another piece of glass for the light to travel through. As well as that, the thickness of a filter with two pieces of glass would be an issue. As is, even a single low profile filter starts to show up in the corners of the frame if I have my 28-135 at it's widest. If I stack a second filter, then it is in frame starting at about 40mm or so. Not sure if the trade off would be worth it.

Thanks, though

Rad