Seascape and Seaspray...

[ShaneS]

Sea spray was my nemesis on a sunrise shoot this past Sunday. It went something like this, set up, shoot, wipe lens, shot, damn, a wave just came in, wipe lens, try again. I managed a few shots that I consider keepers and I learned to check the wind direction before I decide to get up at 4:30AM to head out but even that might not work as the winds are quite variable here...

I really like this one and wonder if the sea spray and the remnants of some sun spots on the right. I'm looking for your feedback on whether this spoils the image or adds something 'authentic' to a seashore image.



I would also like your feedback on the composition and conversion. I'm blessed in that this location is just a short drive from my home and I have the opportunity for a re-shoot.

For comparison here is the color version.



Thanks in advance.

[dje]

Hi Shane

Both the colour and B&W are very nice IMO. I think I prefer the colour in this case simply because they are wonderful colours. The B&W conversion is well executed I think.

I assume the spray on the right you are referring to was on the lens. I do think it detracts a bit from the image, and it is probably more noticeable in the colour version. Would I have noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it ? I don't know !! But a re-shoot might be worthwhile, and take the lens cleaning fluid along !

One other thing, I'd suggest a small brightness gradient in the top right hand corner just to reduce the brightness of the sky a little.

Dave

[Shadowman]

Nice composition, I think the trestle really adds to the image and should dominate the upper portion of the image.

[IzzieK]

Shane...compare to the colour version, I rather like the B/W one this time around (I seldom like B/W because I do not know much about them...) as an exception. Here the clouds are more pronounced. You did very well here. I did not notice the spray on the lens or my eyes just wanted to go sleep now...

In the colour version, I like the sea spray very much...even the foreground is beautiful in colour particularly the shape of the rocks with the backwash forming the shapes in them. I just wished you did not make the way too smooth, give it a bit more texture next time if you reshoot.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Shane,

I like it, lots of interest in the scene and an early morning shot that works without lots of colourful sky. It's the colour version for me I feel it gives more depth although the B&W is ok I'll leave the comments on the conversion to the experts

As for the composition I have read that if the sky is not too interesting minimalise it, is that why you limited it here?

Certainly worth another visit as those rocks look promising but beware the spray and give the camera a good wipe over when getting home.

Grahame

I would agree as well about toning down the right hand top a wee bit.

[NorthernFocus]

Nicely composed image. The use of a gradient for the sky has already been mentioned. I'm not sure this lends itself to the slow shutter speed. It might be more dynamic to freeze the motion of the spray.

Shooting waterfalls can also be challenging to keep water drops off the lens. I find it useful to wear a hat that can be taken off and placed over the lens until you're ready to make an exposure.

[csa mt]

"Both the colour and B&W are very nice IMO. I think I prefer the colour in this case simply because they are wonderful colours. The B&W conversion is well executed I think."

I agree, I also like the color version slightly better because the colors are so muted & beautiful!

[bnnrcn]

Hi Shane I like #2 because the seaspray shows better . the image has lovely colours and I agree with Dan about using a gradient ND filter for the sky.

[FrankMi]

Hi Shane, I am not usually fond of B&W images that were not shot specifically for B&W conversion. In this case I feel the B&W portrays the scene more clearly then the color version.

[Wavelength]

The original has awesome colors..... yet both are wonderful

[Mike Buckley]

Such a wonderful composition and conversion!

If it was mine, I would go with the monochrome version, adjust the sky using either a gradient or reducing contrast just a tad in the brightest areas, increase the contrast in the foreground, brighten the bridge just a bit and straighten to level the bridge (even if it isn't level in reality).

Considering that the scene is so close to your home, it would be worth shooting again to eliminate the issue of water on the lens. However, in the case of the monochrome version, I don't know that I would have noticed it if you hadn't mentioned it. I also wonder if I could solve the issues in that area of the image by cloning.

[ShaneS]

Thank you everyone.

As for the composition I have read that if the sky is not too interesting minimalise it, is that why you limited it here?

Grahame, I minimized the sky by default due to the composition I chose - there was a large rock jutting into the frame on the right that I originally included but while it left more sky in the image it didn't add anything to the composition so the rock and the sky got eliminated.

A number of you pointed out that the sky needs to be darker and I will take a look at this tonight.

Dan said:

I'm not sure this lends itself to the slow shutter speed. It might be more dynamic to freeze the motion of the spray.

Dan & Izzie, I had the camera set to aperture priority mode for this shot and due to the fact that this was taken within a half hour of the sunrise the light was quite dim resulting in a shutter speed that smoothed the water. I'm at work right now but I was at using an aperture between f8 and f16 for most of the shots that morning. I did not experiment with shooting the lower f-stops as I was trying to ensure focus throughout the depth of the composition.

Could I have gotten away with shooting at say f5 (to get a faster shutter speed) without sacrificing focus on some part of the image (front to back)?

I agree with many of you that the sea spray is more prominent in the color version.

Frank, why does it matter to you whether this shot was meant to be black and white at the time that the shutter was pressed in your assessment of the image? Does it make the image lesser because the photographer made a decision after the shot that the image portrayed their vision better when in Black & White?

I don't normally convert images for the sake of it and in this case I believe that the lines and tones of a mono image better portrayed the scene as I saw it and I am still learning what makes a good black and white image so that I can get to the point of 'seeing in black & white'. How else would you propose to learn what works and what doesn't in black & white?

If you note I did not indicate an inclination one way or the other but asked the preference of others. Your statement left me scratching my head wondering if you were trying to read my mind? BTW, I put the black and white version first for a reason

I will definitely head out to this area again for another shoot and see what I can come up with. There are so many options and I appreciate all of your feedback.

[Mike Buckley]

You shot the scene at f/16 and 4 seconds using an 18mm focal length. Based on your apparent distance from the scene, I'm confident that you could have shot at f/5.6 and probably f/4 and kept everything sharply in focus. That would be either 3 or 4 stops faster, still allowing you only to shoot at 0.5 seconds or 0.25 seconds without increasing your ISO value of 100. To freeze the action of the spray you probably would have had to shoot at about 1/250 second, which at f/4 would have required increasing your ISO to 6400.

[ShaneS]

Thanks for taking the time to post the Exif data Mike and the information on obtaining sharp focus throughout the image. I would never have thought that f4 would allow the image to be sharp from front to back and I tend to stick of f8-16 for landscapes - I really need to go out and test this out in the field so I am more knowledgeable in the future.

As far as shutter speed goes, I would need to be on scene after the sun is higher in the sky to freeze the action of the water without impacting image quality (ie. pushing the ISO to 6400). This is an interesting dilemma which seems to boil down to frozen crashing waves vs. soft lighting on the scene and more silky water. Of course I could go on a slightly overcast day and maybe get the best of both worlds

[Mike Buckley]

I would never have thought that f4 would allow the image to be sharp from front to back and I tend to stick of f8-16 for landscapes

When you're so far away from the subject, as an example the bridge, and using an 18mm lens set at f/4 on your camera, the depth of field is going to include anything from about ten feet in front of you to infinity. Check out any online depth-of-field calculator such as this one to get a feel for that.

[FrankMi]

Frank, why does it matter to you whether this shot was meant to be black and white at the time that the shutter was pressed in your assessment of the image? Does it make the image lesser because the photographer made a decision after the shot that the image portrayed their vision better when in Black & White?

It is an observation Shane. Most images I've seen that are planned in advance for B&W are typically better than those where B&W is an afterthought. It doesn't make the image better or worse if it is not planned for B&W, nor is at a negative reflection on the photographer. Taking the time and effort to learn how to become better is what really matters. My main point was that I felt the image presented itself better as a B&W.

I don't normally convert images for the sake of it and in this case I believe that the lines and tones of a mono image better portrayed the scene as I saw it and I am still learning what makes a good black and white image so that I can get to the point of 'seeing in black & white'. How else would you propose to learn what works and what doesn't in black & white?

I totally agree with you. I have not as yet taken the time to learn what it would take to produce B&W images of the quality produced by Donald, Mike, and others here at CiC but I can still appreciate the results.

If you note I did not indicate an inclination one way or the other but asked the preference of others. Your statement left me scratching my head wondering if you were trying to read my mind? BTW, I put the black and white version first for a reason

I surmised that by posting both the B&W and Color versions and indicating that the color version was posted 'for comparison' that you were really more interested in how you made out with the conversion and were looking mostly for conversion pointers. Unfortunately, I can not offer any practical tips on how to make the conversion better. I can only indicate that I like what you had accomplished.

I will be away for a while after this evening but I do hope to follow-up on your progress next time I can access CiC.

[Mike Buckley]

I surmised that by posting both the B&W and Color versions and indicating that the color version was posted 'for comparison' that you were really more interested in how you made out with the conversion and were looking mostly for conversion pointers.

Rightly or wrongly, that was also my take.

[ShaneS]

In my original posting I said:

I would also like your feedback on the composition and conversion.

In my reply to Frank I stated this:

If you note I did not indicate an inclination one way or the other but asked the preference of others.

In my original posting did not request the preference of others.

I never indicated a preference for the color version of the image although other folks who commented did. I put the color version up for two reasons, one to show the sea spray which I feel is more prominent in the color image and for those who wanted to comment on the conversion.

That is why I found Frank's comment a bit odd and a statement that was a bit presumptuous especially given that this is a learning site. However, I do appreciate his clarification and still value his input as he is very generous with his advice which is usually bang on.

Let's just call this subject a wrap as I believe that ho harm or insult was meant

[FootLoose]

Using the colour as a base for comparison, I think you have done a good job with the conversion, Shane. The seaspray aside, I think there is generally more detail in the rocks, particularly in the shadow areas on the left of frame.

[Kaye Leggett]

I really like this one and wonder if the sea spray and the remnants of some sun spots on the right. I'm looking for your feedback on whether this spoils the image or adds something 'authentic' to a seashore image.

For me the sea spray does not detract at all - in the UK we are used to turbulent seas so yes, if it was there then why not shoot it. There will be another day to shoot the calm sea.