2nd try with this kind of waterscape

Hi! As the tittle says, this is my second try with this kind of waterscape. Its a long exposure, thats why the blurred trees in the background.

So, what do you think?

Comments and critiques recommended! (:

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

Very nice! I really like this shot.

Strong foreground. Nice framing (i'm trying to learn/guess english terms for photography, so, please correct me if i'm wrong. I meant nice way to compose the picture.).Colors are in phase with the moment. Great picture, IMO.

There are really 2 separate scenes here, and they have little to naught in common.
If the trees are blurred, it is unlikely to be the result of a long exposure - more likely not in focus.

This would be a good time to learn about hyper-focal distance and how to take advantage of it.

Is there ever a reason to use portrait format for a landscape? Yes, I have seen some examples, but they are in a small minority. In this case I have to suggest that you forsake the foreground and go back to a landscape format. If the sunset doesn't make it on its own, then how can the rocky foreground correct that?

Robert_Lay wrote in post #9887882
There are really 2 separate scenes here, and they have little to naught in common.
If the trees are blurred, it is unlikely to be the result of a long exposure - more likely not in focus.

This would be a good time to learn about hyper-focal distance and how to take advantage of it.

Is there ever a reason to use portrait format for a landscape? Yes, I have seen some examples, but they are in a small minority. In this case I have to suggest that you forsake the foreground and go back to a landscape format. If the sunset doesn't make it on its own, then how can the rocky foreground correct that?

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the last portion of your critique. There are plenty of times when a portrait orientation is necessary (or works) for a landscape shot, and this is one of them. The strong foreground element pulls the viewer into the frame and is well focused (its also possible that there was nothing of interest to the left and right). From the looks of things, it would appear that this was taken with an ultrawide due to the apparent curvature at the tree line. Shooting this scene in landscape orientation would have cut out most of the rocky foreground, leaving the viewer with a blotch of sunlight, a large expanse of water, and a miniscule tree line way out in the distance...not a very good image for an ultrawide landscape shot. In general, ultrawides are best utilized when there is a strong foreground element in the frame.

Without EXIF data, its difficult to add anything more. I will say that it does appear that the aperture was too large for this particular image (lack of DOF), which caused the out of focus trees. A gradient filter could have been used to knock down the bright sun, but all in all its a good start.

argyle wrote in post #9888497
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the last portion of your critique. There are plenty of times when a portrait orientation is necessary (or works) for a landscape shot, and this is one of them. The strong foreground element pulls the viewer into the frame and is well focused (its also possible that there was nothing of interest to the left and right). From the looks of things, it would appear that this was taken with an ultrawide due to the apparent curvature at the tree line. Shooting this scene in landscape orientation would have cut out most of the rocky foreground, leaving the viewer with a blotch of sunlight, a large expanse of water, and a miniscule tree line way out in the distance...not a very good image for an ultrawide landscape shot. In general, ultrawides are best utilized when there is a strong foreground element in the frame.

Without EXIF data, its difficult to add anything more. I will say that it does appear that the aperture was too large for this particular image (lack of DOF), which caused the out of focus trees. A gradient filter could have been used to knock down the bright sun, but all in all its a good start.

As you have implied, it's not a black and white issue. Thank you,

this is nice.
I would have taken 2 images and made a composite though.
one focused to infinity and one just like the one you posted.

It looks good though, I just sorta with the trees were a little bit sharper

Nice shot! I like the portrait format for this, though I'd probably crop out some of the bottom rocks.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #9887882
There are really 2 separate scenes here, and they have little to naught in common.
If the trees are blurred, it is unlikely to be the result of a long exposure - more likely not in focus.

This would be a good time to learn about hyper-focal distance and how to take advantage of it.

Is there ever a reason to use portrait format for a landscape? Yes, I have seen some examples, but they are in a small minority. In this case I have to suggest that you forsake the foreground and go back to a landscape format. If the sunset doesn't make it on its own, then how can the rocky foreground correct that?

I see what your saying now robert and i agree with you.

The potrait orientation works here. However... there should have been a bit more sky: about 1/3 from the top to the horizon with the sun and then with the sun reflection leading the eye to the rocky forground. This is where Robert feels that it is "off": it is not compact enough. The distance between the top and the horizon should be greater than the distance between the horizon and the start of the rocky section. This would have brought the elements more together.

The trees are a minor issue in my opinion. The water is "soft" as well. There must be some ripples but these smoothed out because of the long exposure. Same goes for where the water touches the rocks. In a way this conveys a sort of serenity.

I would have liked the over all picture a bit "warmer" the sun is not yet orange enough (too early?)

All in all a nice shot with room for improvement. Next time you'll know what to watch out for.

Hi! Thank you all for you comments. In this shot a ND 400, GND 6 soft, GND 9 soft were used. I think the blurred background was resulted by the use of too much filters... It was shot with a 40D and an ultrawide ef-s10-22 lens at 10mm.

It was a 531s exposition with f22, iso 100

I used hyper-focal distance - and on the other pics taken at same time, but without filters, the background is quite sharp. There was also a layer of almost invisible mist, which also affected the overall sharpness of the background.

Even though the use of GND filters, the sun was blown out... HOW CAN I OVERCOME THIS?
This was the first time I used such a filters. In the past, I mostly did manual blending in PS, or HDR, and I really wanted to try out something more "natural".

As I look at the picture, it looks for me a bit unbalanced now. In the foreground is a lot of weight, but the background, the sun and clouds, are "less heavier." I wanted the foreground to pull the viewer into the frame, and make a really deep DOF feel, but with the blurred background this was lost. And I think this is were my picture fails.

I do not wanted to put more sky to the pic, because the upper part was -as I thought at the place- not interesting. But as I see it now, it would be nice to have bit more sky there, as vk2gwk stated...

"The distance between the top and the horizon should be greater than the distance between the horizon and the start of the rocky section. This would have brought the elements more together."
-maybe a lower angel of view would fix that?

Thank you for advice!

You had a few things working against you:

1.) Multiple filters (not usually a problem with high quality filters, not sure what brand you were using) High-quality filters can generally be stacked without any problems... Also, filters with a soft gradient won't be much help in this type of lighting...they simply fade too quickly from light to dark.

2.) Very small aperture (f/22) with a crop sensor usually will suffer from diffraction effects and exacerbate OOF (out-of-focus) problems

3.) With the sun that prominent at/near the horizon, generally a 'normal' grad filter isn't the proper tool. What you need in instances such as this is what's known as a 'reverse grad' filter. With this filter, the gradient is heaviest near the center of the filter and fades off as it reaches the top of the filter...this will be more effective in controlling the highlights. In a standard/normal grad, the gradient is lightest near the center and darkens as it reaches the top of the filter...generally not good when the sun is prominent at/near the horizon.

Regarding the composition, I personally like a strong foreground element when an ultrawide is used (which you have accomplished). How much sky (ie 1/3, 2/3, etc) is totally a personal preference. I would have liked to have seen more color in the reflections on the water, so perhaps waiting a few more minutes for the sun to get behind the clouds would have been better? Who knows? It all comes down to personal preference...after all, you're the one that has to be satisfied with the image.

One last thing before I forget about using hyperfocal distance (HFD). Remember that when shooting with HFD techniques, everything will not be pin-sharp from front to back...the key words in HFD are "range of acceptable sharpness". Then factor in diffraction effects at f/22 and you could end up with some not so sharp areas (such as the tree line in the distance). Then factor in the 'mist' as you mentioned, and the distance (atmospheric conditions such as mist, haze, particulate) will affect the image also.