East Oahu Coastline

[ShaneS]

A couple of versions of a shot that I took of the east Oahu coastline. I'm up for some brutal C&C on this one so I am presenting a mono version and my basic ACR edit of the original shot. Here are the things I feel are positive about the image (feel free to disagree):

1. I like the basic composition (especially given the almost blown out sky with minimal detail in the clouds).
2. I think that the mono version is stronger as I found the color a bit too intense.
3. My goal was to create a high key image from the start and as a result I tried to any add only as much contrast as necessary.

Now the concerns:

1. Is the foreground to busy? Is there too much of it?
2. Am I missing something in the processing that could improve the image?
3. I have a nagging feeling that this image goes in the round file...(I can go back and re-shoot under better lighting conditions)

If you are so inclined, feel free to have a go at your own edit of the image and share your basic workflow...





EXIF data: F16, 1/160, Exp Compensation -.67, ISO 100, Focal length 55mm (crop sensor)

[Donald]

Well done, Shane, on putting your own thinking and assessment into the post. I think that doing so not only helps our own learning, but helps other people make useful comments back to you.

To pick up on a couple of your points:

I like the basic composition (especially given the almost blown out sky with minimal detail in the clouds).

So do I. That idea of the lone tree on the skyline really appeals to me. However, if you wanted a high key image, I don't think you've gone far enough with that. It's ended up as a sort of half-way stop on the road to high key, I think. The result is that an area of sky at the right hand side is blown whilst the rest of the sky is not. And that looks like am error rather than a creative choice. I think you needed to go all the way on making it high key or, pull back from going down that route.

Is the foreground to busy? Is there too much of it?

I think your question reveals your own doubts about this ... which is good. You're looking at your own work with a critical eye.
I think there is too much foreground. I'm not sure we need to see so much to tell us about the isolation of the tree and the bleakness of the landscape. I scrolled the page so that I only saw the upper part of the image (i.e. in about a 3:1 or 2.5:1 panorama ratio). I think that made for a much stronger image. But, of course, you and others may not agree with that.

[Mike Buckley]

I completely agree with Donald, especially his thinking about composition, your keen ability to critique your own work, and that the post-processing isn't far enough along the way toward a high-key look. By the way, it probably would have been better to start with a capture that had been exposed more to the right to render the most effective high-key look.

I spent only about two minutes making this version from your color version. The short time I spent on it explains why all detail in the sky is lost and why it has other deficiencies. Even so, hopefully it gives you a basic idea of where you can go if you really want a high-key presentation.

[Donald]

I saw it like .............



which, although done using Nik's Silver Efex Pro2 software, is little more than working on the B & Ws (darkening down and brightening up)

[Mike Buckley]

I like your treatment also, Donald, though I wouldn't call it a high-key version, which is Shane's goal. That leads to the point that I would go for the best treatment, whether it's high-key, low-key or something else. I doubt that this scene naturally lends toward a high-key approach, but I probably don't have enough experience with making high-key images to determine that with any degree of certainty.

[nimitzbenedicto]

A couple of versions of a shot that I took of the east Oahu coastline. I'm up for some brutal C&C on this one so I am presenting a mono version and my basic ACR edit of the original shot. Here are the things I feel are positive about the image (feel free to disagree):

(I can go back and re-shoot under better lighting conditions)[/LIST]
If you are so inclined, feel free to have a go at your own edit of the image and share your basic workflow...



EXIF data: F16, 1/160, Exp Compensation -.67, ISO 100, Focal length 55mm (crop sensor)

Hi Shane,

How about this crop (almost like Donald's), if you can re-shoot under better conditions. But shoot upwards thru the tree [camera at grass/ground level ] towards the sky - blue sky.



HTH

[pasusan]

Hi Shane - I like Donald's treatment best as it reminds me of a pen and ink drawing, but Mike's is great too and is probably closer to what you were looking for in a high key image. Then I like Victor's because the clouds are more visible. This is a tough one and I applaud you for expressing your feelings about it. I think you chose a good image for conversion - there seem to be many ways to process it.

[ShaneS]

Donald, Mike, Victor & Susan - thank you all of your constructive feedback on this image and it's presentation. My wheels are now turning and I am eager to look at the other exposures that I made of the same scene to further explore the possibilities that lurk within (when I get home from work ). That said, I do believe that a reshoot is likely to provide the best results and I will now have all of you on my shoulder, so to speak, the next time I release the shutter and that is a good thing.

Here are a couple of other shots from the day...

[Andrew76]

Hi Shane - I like your original image. Could I make a suggestion to you?

For me, the lone tree idea is great. But, the foreground takes away from it's feeling of isolation, not that it's too busy as you suggest, it's just that there's a whole lot to look at in the foreground, so the tree can be easily overlooked. Remember that basic rule of compostion where when shooting a horizon, you should not centre the horizon, you should recompose to include more of whichever is more interesting, either land, or sky? Well that's exactly what you've done, and since the land is more interesting, it overthrows the solitude tree.

What I think would look really cool would be to break that rule, and recompose with a condsiderable amount of the frame to include the bland, nearly blown out sky.

It will certainly have a different feel to it, and it may not be what you're looking to accomplish. In that case, ignore all of this. But it will certainly pull focus to the tree, and give a strong association to aloneness. That, in high key would looked amazing!

Just my thoughts.

[Mike Buckley]

For me, these last two images are far superior to the first one. Consider cropping the second one (of these last two images) to eliminate about half of the sky.

[Mike Buckley]

I do believe that a reshoot is likely to provide the best results and I will now have all of you on my shoulder

Uh oh. Another good reason to lose some weight...as if I didn't already have enough reasons.

[ShaneS]

Mike, thanks for the chuckle and your kind words and suggetion on the latter two shots (The 2nd is Koko Crater on Oahu). I'm already confused enough and I could only imagine a mini group of you, half on each shoulder. One would say, 'More sky", another "More foreground", "Tilt the camera, up, no down!", "A little to the right, no left!" etc., etc...

Those thoughts are enough to drive a girl to drink or meds but I find all of the comments very thought provoking and helpful

Andrew, thank you as well, you are now cordially invited to join the other wise folks on my shoulder when I return to the scene

[nimitzbenedicto]

Those thoughts are enough to drive a girl to drink or meds but I find all of the comments very thought provoking and helpful

Welcome to the world of CnC @ CiC.

[Mike Buckley]

Those thoughts are enough to drive a girl to drink or meds

My vote would be to go with drink. The taste is far superior.