Back Modifications (2)
Views: 107 (26 Unique)  Award Shortlist   

wheal coates

By dplatt2000
Been after a shot here for a while, and thought this time of year would be best to get the heather and gorse in flower, however tonight it was the sky and ocean taking center stage. Took me ages to try find a good composition as I was on a very steep hill here! My main goal with this was to get a long exposure and strong composition in, unfortunately my Hitech 10 stop is giving me bloody awful blue casts I cant remove (help appreciated!) So I had to use a 3 stop ND, and a 0.9Grad balanced the sky. I shot at f13 to get my exposure right down (after f13 it starts going soft) I got down to 10 seconds, and like the movement in the clouds, I would have liked more though and especially in the sea. I am also a bit concerned about the haloed edges on the edge of the cliff meeting the white sea, this happened in camera can anyone offer me advise on how to remove this? Any critique much appreciated Smile Cheers Grin

Tags: Landscape and travel

Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!
This photo is here for critique. Please only comment constructively and with suggestions on how to improve it.


saeidNL 8 3 Netherlands
13 Sep 2012 11:47PM
Beautiful image with superb detail and colours

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

alistairfarrugia 5 164 88 Malta
13 Sep 2012 11:50PM
Not sure whether this would work, but if you set the white balance to a blue-light temperature, the camera will be fooled and it will add orange to the picture, slightly lowering the blue cast for you in-camera. Try setting it to different options to see which one looks best to you.

As regards the halo, did you try lowering sharpness in post-processing, maybe it goes away? Otherwise select the edge using a lasso tool and slightly blur it to reduce the halo effect.

In the meantime I edited it using Paint Shop Pro, got an old version, and blurring options are quite limited. Check description of modified image to see what I did to it. I think my mod helps bring the building into the picture a bit more than the original upload, giving the slightly more saturated colours and slightly higher contrast. What do you think? Is this what you were after originally?
14 Sep 2012 10:23AM
thanks, I will be sure to try that...I have tried altering the white balance in RAW conversion, but it is way too strong to do anything about...

I like how your modification has brought the building out a little more, however I feel it is a bit too sharp and contrasty in the foreground for my liking...I guess it will be an image where i have to spend quite some careful time in post!
Jestertheclown 9 7.7k 252 England
14 Sep 2012 10:42AM
Hi Darren, welcome to Epz.

Another approach.
In my mod., I desaturated the blue channel only, until the sky and sea were less blue. This worked but unsurprisingly, left a red/magenta cast, so I individually desaturated those channels by what seemed an appropriate amount as well.
That's also affected the saturation in the building and the foreground, which I personally, think were oversaturated to begin with.
At this size, it's hard to say what's causing that halo effect but opening it up in Photoshop, it does look to have been pretty well sharpened. Perhaps just a shade too much.
Hope this helps.

iancrowson Plus
8 211 146 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2012 12:36PM
Nice shot. The halo effect is probably chromatic aberration, colour fringing, due to the lenses abilility to diffferenciate between contrasting colours. It can be corrected in Adobe Raw and other raw conversion software.
In my view your second poppy pic is much better than the first. It have a great balance between foreground and the view.
paulbroad 10 123 1250 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2012 4:54PM
A well composed image. The colours don't bother me too much, seem to suite. There is a line and it looks like either over sharpening or a selection line. Have you performed a sellection and then worked separately on sky or foreground? The whole white area of waves does seem a bit too insistent.

14 Sep 2012 6:09PM
thanks for the feedback everyone...seems to be a bit of misunderstanding, the colours in this were how I envisioned it, however when using my 10 stop (as I had wanted to) the whole thing was horribly irrecoverably I didn't use it, opting for a 3 stop instead, which didn't quite get the exposure long enough. The line has not come from sharpening, or from processing - as stated in the first post, this has occured IN CAMERA ie it was there when I opened the RAW fact I have not done much work at all, save removing dust spots, removing noise and adding a little contrast in the cloud area. Chromatic abberation springs to mind, which as Ian said can be removed, however I don't currently know how Smile it is not something I have seen this lens suffer with before, I can only imagine it is due to high contrast in the area, however having said that it is slightly present on the right hand cliff edge where is there is less contrast, so maybe not?!?! I do like the image and feel if this were removed, it would be a winner!
Focus_Man 8 481 631 United Kingdom
15 Sep 2012 11:18AM
A couple of things here which are basics. Firstly, the horizon is not level, (It slopes down to the right a little) I cannot understand the number of times this needs mentioning. It is easy to fix, but I am afraid it has to be pointed out. Secondly I feel that the lean of the stack needs to be vertical, it has a distinct lean here to the right. Also if it were possible to do from your location, I would have liked to have seen the stack top further away from the horizon, which it almost touches.
One other thing which is a personal approach, I would have liked to see the horizon a bit higher (closer to a third) so that we could see more of the foreground and its colour.

alistairfarrugia 5 164 88 Malta
15 Sep 2012 11:30AM
I think as a composition, and based on Frank's feedback, it would be curious to see how the picture turns out if taken from a position much closer to the ground. We'd probably lose some of the wave splashes like this though...
Focus_Man 8 481 631 United Kingdom
16 Sep 2012 8:42AM

Quote:I think as a composition, and based on Frank's feedback, it would be curious to see how the picture turns out if taken from a position much closer to the ground. We'd probably lose some of the wave splashes like this though...

I was actually thinking of a higher viewpoint, which of course would have been difficult to find. That would then take the chimmey top further away from the horizon. Using a lower VP would cause it to cross the horizon.

alistairfarrugia 5 164 88 Malta
16 Sep 2012 10:56AM
I see - and if I recall correctly lines going through the subject are a no-no in photography, right?
Jestertheclown 9 7.7k 252 England
16 Sep 2012 2:03PM

Quote:if I recall correctly lines going through the subject are a no-no in photography, right?

There is nothing that's a 'no-go' in photography, in exactly the same way that there are no rules regarding what you must do.
The so-called 'rules of composition' aren't rules at all, they're no more than guidelines which you may, or may not, choose to follow and hopefully, never adhere to.
So, to answer your question; if you want to place your horizon right through the subject and it looks OK to you, then that's all that matters.
Likewise, if you want to place something centrally, as opposed to being on a third, if the subject isn't 'looking into the frame' or if you choose to include a logo; go ahead. It's your image to produce however you please.

alistairfarrugia 5 164 88 Malta
16 Sep 2012 2:39PM
What I meant is, though, in a competition scenario, such elements are marked down if I recall correctly. Of course, "rules" are indeed guidelines as you rightly pointed out. Hope this clarifies my point above.
Jestertheclown 9 7.7k 252 England
16 Sep 2012 3:45PM
I'm sure that you're right Alistair, regarding competitions. They're something that I've never looked at.
I was referring to photography in a more general sense.
You'll see lots of comments in here referencing these so-called rules which, if taken literally, could lead people to believing that they have to compose their images in a particular way, which, outside of competitions presumably, simply isn't the case.
Compose your shots as you see fit and by all means be aware of the "rules" but don't think that you need to slavishly observe them.
alistairfarrugia 5 164 88 Malta
16 Sep 2012 4:59PM
Fully agreed then Smile
Focus_Man 8 481 631 United Kingdom
17 Sep 2012 9:57AM
Rules of composition grew as appreciation was shown for certain artistic arrangements, like RoT eg. There are no such things as 'rules'of course but a great deal of shots, including a lot shown in EPZ would benefit from following those rules. That is why many critiquers mention them. It is essential that beginners learn these rules (and those who refuse get lost in the learning curve ) so that when fully conversant, they are able to discern those times when it is either acceptable or better to ignore them. It is also true to say that when following the rules, you will be right to do so on more occasions than is the contrary.


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.