Back Modifications (6)
Views 102 Unique 44 Award Shortlist   

Stroove Lighthouse at sunrise

By ladigit
Stroove beach, as the sun came up.

The light is quite muted, so possibly it needs a lift but I'm not sure how best to do that? Taken using a tripod and a grad filter .8

I had another I posted, taken a little later so the light was more yellow. I think this one is nicer but open to opinions on how I could improve it.

As always, I really appreciate your feedback and input, helping me learn so much.
Thanks,
Tracy

Tags: Landscape and travel Donegal ireland

WEX Deals: Sony Summer Cashback - Claim Up To 300

Comments


deemac 14 6 11 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2014 12:33PM
I have uploaded a mod that might be closer to what you were looking for. In it I have enhanced the sky and the light falling on the lighthouse and other buildings.

I don't know how familiar you are with digital photo processing so I hope the following explanation makes sense! The process is quite simple. In Photoshop I have applied a "Curves" adjustment layer. (If you don't have adjustment layers in your photo processing program of choice, you could create a duplicate layer and apply curves to that.) The shape of curve I have used is not what you might expect. Rather than increase contrast, I have used virtually the opposite, lifting the lower left end of the curve and slightly lowering the upper right. This results in an improved sky and the pink light reflecting off the white buildings being enhanced but has a less pleasing effect on the foreground. No matter, I have masked out the lower half of the adjustment layer using a soft brush, so the original image i used there, merging into the modified one for the upper part of your image.

Just a couple of observations. First, your image data says you used a JPEG image. You would be much better shooting in RAW, or even have your camera record both RAW & JPEG, and process from your RAW file using a RAW converter. (Possibly you did but just did not show that when you uploaded the image.) Second, I note that you've used f22, the smallest aperture your lens has. All lenses, even primes, lose a little quality at their most extreme settings. I don't know how this particular lens performs but it will almost certainly give sharper results overall at f16. Yes, the depth of field will be shorter but it should still be more than sufficient for this shot by having it focused somewhere just beyond the foreground rocks. (This makes use of something called the hyper-focal distance but don't get too caught up in the technicalities. The rule of thumb is to focus on something roughly one quarter to one third of the way up your image from the bottom edge. That IS just a rule of thumb!)

I hope that's of some help to you.

David.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

deemac 14 6 11 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2014 12:51PM
Me again! If you want an even more extreme mod, I've uploaded a second one which has an additional adjustment layer. In this one I've used levels and pulled the left end pointer to the right. (The amount is a matter od choice.) Again I have masked out much of this adjustment layer. In this case I've masked pretty much everything except the sky and the sand along the bottom edge. (The unaltered sand was beginning to look too bright.) I've also been a little more selective about where the mask shows or hides the levels adjustment along the spit of land and buildings around the lighthouse. The great thing with masks, of course, is that you can paint them in or out to your heart's content, seeing how it looks as you go.

Cheers,

David.
banehawi Plus
16 2.2k 4126 Canada
17 Oct 2014 2:08PM
Its a nice shot Tracy. Lovely light.

If you took this in RAW, just reduce exposure by - 0.7 to -1, and then increase saturation by +10. Thats what Ive done.

If you only have a JPEG, open it in Adobe Camera Raw, and do the same.

Its very well exposed, filling the histogram out well, and in this case, that reduces the depth and drama thats possible. Reducing exposure brings out that drama very easily. Colour will automatically be denser, and a small lift in saturation completes the picture.

I think the point David brinhs up re aperture has been mentioned before. At f/22, you are working in an area where your results will be a lot less crisp that if you used a larger aperture; after f/11, it can really drop off, and you really dont need anything smaller that f/11 for this. As a comparison re dof. using f/22, the depth will start at 3.5 feet in front of the lens to infinity; at f/11, it start at 7.2 feet in front of the lens to infinity, with a crisper result. There isnt a lot of water movement here that would suffer from a shorter exposure time.

The mods also have a little sharpening added; that makes the brightly lit rocks sparkle nicely; theres some crop suggestions there also.


Regards


Willie
Hermanus 7 4 South Africa
17 Oct 2014 6:12PM
This is one superb image - very well captured Smile
paulbroad 12 131 1288 United Kingdom
18 Oct 2014 6:22PM
Nice shot. I would just run the burning in tool over the sky, top right, to reduce brightness on the frame edge. Do I detact flash in the foreground. There is a change of colour balance and intensity in the foreground which looks like flash, but your EXIF says none?

With Willie, just no need for f22. Not the best aperture for most lenses except macro. F8 or 1q quite enough.


Paul
Mike43 9 152 21 England
19 Oct 2014 10:30AM
Lovely image, only little personal negs not to keen on the rocks in the bottom right hand corner and the overall image is on the cold side for me, have uploaded a mod to show what I mean.

I think you got the speed of the waves just right, as Paul already mentioned F22-2.5sec, if I shooting with a tripod I always shoot at different settings so in this case I would have gone for additional exposures of F16 - 5s, F11 - 10s, then maybe if I had time F8 - 20s they all goes to give you that flexibility when you get them home.

Anyway regardless of what I say it is still a very nice photo.
Mike.
deemac 14 6 11 United Kingdom
19 Oct 2014 3:31PM
I'm afraid Mike43 has got his alternative exposure settings back to front. Please don't be confused by that!

As aperture increases (i.e. f number reduces) then the shutter speed needs to get shorter (not longer) to give the same exposure. So in this instance, f16 would need 1.3s, f11 would need 0.5s, and f8 would need 1/4 s (all approximate). However, Mike's idea of trying alternative settings is good because it allows you to compare the performance of your lens at these different settings.

Every lens has its "sweet spot" for aperture settings so it is worth experimenting to get to know your own lenses. I don't have personal experience of this lens but I do know of its fine reputation. You do not have to look too far for an in-depth review of it (try reading Ken Rockwell's for example) so if you prefer to let someone else do the experimenting for you, that's fine! Banehawi's suggestion of trying f11 (as opposed to mine of f16) may be wiser, I don't know. So far I have found no mention of how this Canon EF28mm f1.8 USM lens performs at small apertures, just some fall-off of contrast/sharpness at the corners when wider than f4. It may be that at f16, or even f22, results are acceptable for this much-acclaimed lens, and using f22 to get a longer exposure and greater depth of field (dof) might be perfectly okay.

If you DO want to experiment with the lens settings yourself, find a subject that is in a single plane, such as a brick wall, and photograph that. The idea is that the distance of your subject will be roughly the same across the whole image, so you cut out the distance to the subject as a variable in your experiment. Check the resulting images particularly towards the corners as this is where any problems tend to occur with lenses.

All that remains to be said is well done on your excellent choice of lens!

David.
Mike43 9 152 21 England
19 Oct 2014 4:23PM
Oh Yes: David of course you are right I went off in the wrong direction, only excuse is Old Age is getting to me.

Mike.



Quote:I'm afraid Mike43 has got his alternative exposure settings back to front. Please don't be confused by that!

As aperture increases (i.e. f number reduces) then the shutter speed needs to get shorter (not longer) to give the same exposure. So in this instance, f16 would need 1.3s, f11 would need 0.5s, and f8 would need 1/4 s (all approximate). However, Mike's idea of trying alternative settings is good because it allows you to compare the performance of your lens at these different settings.

Every lens has its "sweet spot" for aperture settings so it is worth experimenting to get to know your own lenses. I don't have personal experience of this lens but I do know of its fine reputation. You do not have to look too far for an in-depth review of it (try reading Ken Rockwell's for example) so if you prefer to let someone else do the experimenting for you, that's fine! Banehawi's suggestion of trying f11 (as opposed to mine of f16) may be wiser, I don't know. So far I have found no mention of how this Canon EF28mm f1.8 USM lens performs at small apertures, just some fall-off of contrast/sharpness at the corners when wider than f4. It may be that at f16, or even f22, results are acceptable for this much-acclaimed lens, and using f22 to get a longer exposure and greater depth of field (dof) might be perfectly okay.

If you DO want to experiment with the lens settings yourself, find a subject that is in a single plane, such as a brick wall, and photograph that. The idea is that the distance of your subject will be roughly the same across the whole image, so you cut out the distance to the subject as a variable in your experiment. Check the resulting images particularly towards the corners as this is where any problems tend to occur with lenses.

All that remains to be said is well done on your excellent choice of lens!

David.

deemac 14 6 11 United Kingdom
19 Oct 2014 4:42PM
LOL Mike, it happens to the best of us!!! Tongue
ladigit 5 229 1 Ireland
20 Oct 2014 10:02AM

Quote:Nice shot. I would just run the burning in tool over the sky, top right, to reduce brightness on the frame edge. Do I detact flash in the foreground. There is a change of colour balance and intensity in the foreground which looks like flash, but your EXIF says none?

With Willie, just no need for f22. Not the best aperture for most lenses except macro. F8 or 1q quite enough.
Paul


Hi Paul,

No flash used - so it must just have been the light. The sun was rising over my right hand shoulder for this shot. I will certainly try out what you have suggested regarding exposure and saturation.

I think the only reason I went to f22 was the light - the shorter the exposure the less colour I was getting in the shot. So at f11 it was so fast, that the shot was quite boring to me - I have some of these and can post one Smile I didn't want to add additional filters as it just gives a colour cast (cokin) and I think impacts too much on the shot.

Quote:
If you DO want to experiment with the lens settings yourself, find a subject that is in a single plane, such as a brick wall, and photograph that. The idea is that the distance of your subject will be roughly the same across the whole image, so you cut out the distance to the subject as a variable in your experiment. Check the resulting images particularly towards the corners as this is where any problems tend to occur with lenses.

All that remains to be said is well done on your excellent choice of lens!
David.


I will certainly try this out next time I'm in a place that has something suitable out of pure curiosity! Looking at the reviews as you mentioned, it looks like it's not so good above f16 - which is interesting. I'll be careful of this going forward.
Thank you all!
banehawi Plus
16 2.2k 4126 Canada
20 Oct 2014 12:34PM
Heres the detailed lens review. The MTF chart stops at f/11, but you can expect the downward trend to get worse as the aperture decreases. This is a phenomenon of physics that affects all lenses.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/726-canon28f18eos5d?start=1


W

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.