Back Modifications (3)
Views 73 Unique 25 Award Shortlist   

Memories of Barbados

By Bore07TM
This photo was taken while on holiday in Barbados, near the Animal Flower Cave in the north of the island which is starkly different to the more touristy areas of the island.

I wanted to show the ruggedness of the coast, and chose a close-up of the various wave-cut platforms there are.

I also wanted to show how rough the seas are in this part of the island.

The light was extremely bright, little shade, I had no ND filter or tripod to assist me.


Tags: Seascape Barbados Landscape and travel

Enter the ePHOTOzine Christmas Prize Draw extravaganza!

Comments


banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4049 Canada
5 May 2017 12:44PM
In the last line, you may well have provided your own critique!

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

dudler Plus
16 977 1536 England
5 May 2017 3:02PM
The white balance seems very blue, despite being manually set... And there are burned-out highlights - I suspect the dark rocks fooled the meter (using centre-weighted average) into overexposing.

My mod tries to pull things back a bit, but this is a case where a definite plan to deal with the problems of shooting would have helped.
5 May 2017 5:42PM
I think I have learned banehawi's mod as to what can be achieved using an ND Filter and tripod. I have an ND 8 filter, and tried something similar in Lanzarote, but I believe for bright light conditions I probably need a stronger ND Filter - what would recommend?

I guess also going back early morning/late afternoon would also assist?
mrswoolybill Plus
13 1.7k 2099 United Kingdom
5 May 2017 6:03PM
I'm not a landscaper, but two things jump out from this for me.

Firstly while I am not a fan of milky water, a very fast shutter speed, freezing moving water to crunchy art-glass textures, doesn't really work so well for a wide view. It creates too much detail without discriminating visually between the detail that matters and the incidentals.

So I wonder if you tried other shutter speeds? Not milky water long exposure, but maybe 1/200 second or thereabouts, to give a hint of movement?

Secondly, extremes of light such as here are where shooting Raw files really pays dividends. Because it records all the available data, rather than a fraction of it as jpegs do, Raw gives much greater scope for retrieval of detail in problem areas.
Moira
5 May 2017 6:34PM
Just clarify, this photo was shot in Raw, I rarely shoot anything as a Jpeg.
Grin
iancrowson Plus
9 213 146 United Kingdom
5 May 2017 7:14PM
An exciting shot with beautifully coloured sea even if the whites are a bit blue.
I suggest going back to your RAQ converter and altering colour balance a touch and try reducing high lights to see if there are any details lurking in the burnt out looking areas.
Like Moria I'm not a lover of rough water made smooth by slow shutter speeds, I like the feeling of power the sea has in this image
regards
Ian
mrswoolybill Plus
13 1.7k 2099 United Kingdom
5 May 2017 7:54PM

Quote:Just clarify, this photo was shot in Raw, I rarely shoot anything as a Jpeg.

That's good, and the original file should allow scope for more improvement. When you upload, please use the drop-down to change JPEG to RAW, so that we know.
dark_lord Plus
15 2.4k 599 England
5 May 2017 8:25PM
I quite like the soft look of blurred water, but I also like crisply frozen water droplets. But for me those would be from two completely different scenarios.

For crashing waves I'd try both. Where the sea is rough a small amount of blur in the water can give an impression of power and energy; crisp droplets if you can capture them can look impressive.

Here the sea is choppy rather than rough (for example like some of the Atlantic storms hitting the coast) but the rocks are rugged, and I can see here what Moira is getting at as the rocks are solid and it's nice to see some fluidity in the water as a contrast. That's the hint of movement Moira talks about. Exact shutter speeds will depend on water speed and size in the frame so you need to take a series of shots at different settings and see what you find the most appealing.

So yes an ND filter would help reduce your shutter speed but as you mention an ND8 isn't going to be nough as that'd give a corresponding shutter speed here of 1/60 which isn't perhaps slow enough.
Take a look at this article for suggestions on an appropriate strength filter.

banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4049 Canada
6 May 2017 12:43AM
As mentioned use the drop down to indicate RAW when loading.

The shutter speed you would need for this to stop the water, and without IS is 1/1200 due to the equivalent focal length.

Blue in the white areas indicate, even though you selected a sunny wb manually, that there is a blue colour cast; this is readily seen in the dark rocks also. The light may have been difficult overall for the camera, its a very wide dynamic range. In the RAW converter, in the White Balance area, select AUTO in the programme and see what happens.

W
6 May 2017 12:14PM
I tried to upload the original RAW file, but the site would not accept it, so I've uploaded a Jpeg with Auto White Balance and no Preset adjustment
dark_lord Plus
15 2.4k 599 England
6 May 2017 4:50PM
The site will only accept jpgs but yes uploading a jpg with no processing applied is as close as you can get and perfectly ok.
paulbroad Plus
12 131 1286 United Kingdom
6 May 2017 4:57PM
I suspect your white balance is wrong. This is very blue. I'm not convinced this does the job as a stand alone. It would fit in a sequence but it could be almost anywhere with sea,rocks and sun. Nothing determines location visually or even gives a clue.

I prefer the water sharp, so an ND filter should not be needed for that effect. However, 1/500 @ f5 does not suggest terribly bright light?

Paul
6 May 2017 5:24PM
Paul Many Thanks for your comment - The issue with regards to wrong white balance was pointed out by banehawi and others. I was asked to upload the original Raw file (which I couldn't), instead, I uploaded a Jpeg with Auto White Balance and no Preset adjustment is "Mod 3" - this was what (I believe) I was asked to.

If I was required to delete the original upload and replace it with Jpeg with Auto White Balance and no Preset adjustment, then I'll do that.

dudler Plus
16 977 1536 England
6 May 2017 6:51PM
Thanks - that's helpful.

On looking at al lthe comments, where do you want your white balance to be, I wonder... After all, your picture, your rules - we have all expressed opinions, but you don't have to accept any of them if they don't make sense to you (as some regular uploaders here have shown in the past).
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4049 Canada
6 May 2017 7:27PM
Thanks. You can see that the colour cast was detected and corrected in the RAW file. Its can be tweaked a bit, but the RAW auto will, 9 times out of 10, get close to correct.


W
6 May 2017 7:28PM
Dudler - The feedback from all contributors has been great, I've learnt a lot
of the last day or so.

Having looked at the Auto White Balance version, I think that is close to what I saw at the time, although I believe the seaweed on top of the wave-cut platforms is closer to a dark green than brown.

I also think this is a time I'm with dark_lord with regards to burring/not blurring the waves.

I hope that makes sense.
dark_lord Plus
15 2.4k 599 England
6 May 2017 9:07PM
Thank you for engaging in a conversation with us (not all posters here do that) and the Team will appreciate that.

I'm glad you've learned from this, that is the aim of course.
We never stop learning and the best way to consolidate that is to put it into practice next time.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.