Back Modifications (3)
Views 58 Unique 23 Award Shortlist   

Saltwick Bay (original)

By pat_hopkins
Orinal photo from camera......nothing added nothing taken away....

Tags: Saltwick bay Landscape and travel

Use the code EXCIRE-EP to save 15% on Excire Foto Software

Comments


pablophotographer 10 2.0k 416
15 Jun 2017 1:40PM
Oooops, I went for a Seventies look. That is how the photos in my album look like now Smile
pablophotographer 10 2.0k 416
15 Jun 2017 2:23PM
Hi Pat, I've noticed you wanted to show the original on your previous upload. As a standard member where you can upload a picture a day rather than many the way to go around this is to upload the original as a modification to the previous shot you had uploaded. It would all be in the same place then and you could have a chance to upload a different picture today.
I think Mrswoolybill talked about composition and there is where I would like to make my comments too as I feel that the picture aside from it's other exposure issues is a combination of two oversimplified opposite triangles. A plain and less busy on top left and a busy on bottom right. You just draw a diagonal from top right to bottom left corners and you wonder... ''what did the poet want to say?'' Hmmm....
Anyway the sky (big part of the image is quite dull ,should I say or at the time of taking the picture the clouds were not as picturesque. Overcast skies can be useful as they diffuse the light but they can get more interesting if you add a prop of a bird or a airplane pulling an advert ''Vote Holidays'', yes if you have such stock... use it as you say you like manipulating your pics. If you have not... you can crop the skies out
substantially. I don't know if that formation on the first third from the left is a man made structure or a natural rock, it is interesting where it is though, The human silhouettes are too tiny in the pic, as tiny as the flowers on the forefront, that reminds me a place from Gulliver's travels.
I think if you had not gone for that triangular composition but had allowed more of the land of the landscape to be visible (that can change by a simple tilt of the lens downwards) the exposure would have been better in the original frame. I don't know much of Canon's metering to know what ''Partial''does, do you set yourself the spot that the metering will be taken from? I think a mid tone from the sand could be a good place. Or you could folow the ''sunny 16'' rule by adjusting exposure to 1/100 sec as your ISO is set to 100 - and your aperture was f/16.
Kindly,
pablophotographer
paulbroad Plus
14 131 1293 United Kingdom
15 Jun 2017 3:54PM
I prefer your worked version shown previously. This has the problem of bright sky and under exposed foreground as is often the case with such shots. Otherwise my comments remain the same - it needs some dramatic lighting to lift it. I've seen Saltwick and Black Nab many times in reality and as photographs.

I don't find it a particularly attractive area, although many do, so, for me it needs something to make me look.

Paul
banehawi Plus
17 2.7k 4282 Canada
15 Jun 2017 4:32PM
Thanks for the original Pat.

The comments from previous upload apply, except that this version has not been sharpened in post processing, so does not have halos around edges.

Underexposed due to the presence of a large expanse of sky; its not sharp anywhere, and, assuming you shot in JPEG, it should be sharp somewhere. So, I wonder if you are shooting the largest possible JPEG quality, might be called Fine or something like that?If you are, dont re-size the image when you upload it, let the site do it.

If none of these apply, it may well be the aperture being a bit too small for that lens at that focal length.


Loaded a mod as best I could from the original. Brighter foreground, crop.


Regards


Willie
dark_lord Plus
17 2.9k 795 England
15 Jun 2017 7:40PM
Much was covered on your last upload, and I'm with Paul in that your las uplad was a more pleasing image.

You need more exposure to get the shadow area detail rather than try and lift it so much in post procssing. Shooting at ISO 100 isn't so bad as noise will be low but if you were using higher speeds then nois will appear much sooner when you try to lift the shadows. So while you can get by here it's soething to bear in mind in future.

You didn't need f/16, as f/11 will give you all the depth of field you need at that focal length. The aperture's physical size at that setting is 1.3 mm so there is the spectre of diffraction softening though it can also be affected by heavy jpg compression at the taking stage or for upload here, so it's worth double checking your settings.

Apart from taking two shots at different and blending them, which really needs a tripod, if you shoot a scene like this in RAW you have so much more information available so you can extract detail from highlight and shadow areas with much less degradation of image quality. Not so bad here, but other situations may be less forgiving.
dudler Plus
18 1.8k 1896 England
16 Jun 2017 7:27AM
Thank you for uploading this version, Pat. This makes it very clear that the essential problem is underexposure. The sky is bright and that's for the camera into a setting that makes everything else too dark.

There are various things that you could have done more when you took that picture that would help sort this out. The landscape are perfectionist view is that you should have used a graduated filter to darken the sky and balance the explosions better. It would have been difficult, though, to position it so that it didn't dark and the cliffs...

The digital solution would be to use a tripod, shoot bracketed exposures, and either merge the sky from a less exposed frame with the ground from a more exposed one, all merge them using HDR software.

Any way round, the solution lies in the camerawork, and identifying potential problems. Then, you can work round them to produce the results that you want. Ansel Adams, the great American landscape photographer, wrote about the need for previsualisation: that you should decide how you want the end result to look, and should arrange the camera settings to make this straightforward to achieve.

That can sound a rather pretentious way to take pictures - but it's like the canny gardener who plants the tall shrub behind the short one, and leaves for both to grow between them. This saves having to dig them up and move them around later, which is the gardener's equivalent of extensive Photoshop work.

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.