Seascapes - 4.5 (early morning)

[ShaneS]

Grahame...you are getting really good at these and will soon be a morning person waking everyday at 4AM.

I am torn between #1 and #2 and if you get the levels on the 2nd tweaked I would really like to see that because even though I agree with Donald about the islands being a supporting act I also agree with Daniel that the position and cropping of the island on the right is more pleasing in the 1st if we could see it all. I wonder if cloning it out would work in the 2nd?

The 3rd and sunset has some real potential but that might be past your new bedtime

I also love the positioning of the horizon and I would probably have fussed about it like you did

Sorry for the late reply, I wanted to properly look at these and I got a bit sidetracked on some processing issues as you have probably seen in my HDR thread.

[Stagecoach]

Grahame...you are getting really good at these and will soon be a morning person waking everyday at 4AM.

I am torn between #1 and #2 and if you get the levels on the 2nd tweaked I would really like to see that because even though I agree with Donald about the islands being a supporting act I also agree with Daniel that the position and cropping of the island on the right is more pleasing in the 1st if we could see it all. I wonder if cloning it out would work in the 2nd?

The 3rd and sunset has some real potential but that might be past your new bedtime

I also love the positioning of the horizon and I would probably have fussed about it like you did

Sorry for the late reply, I wanted to properly look at these and I got a bit sidetracked on some processing issues as you have probably seen in my HDR thread.

Hi Shane,

I'm really loving the early morning photo projects it's a great time to be around and so quiet and peaceful. But I still get the occasional chuckle when at a scene working away with camera on tripod a curious person will appear from nowhere and ask me if I'm taking pictures

I have considered cloning out that small island on the left where it bisects the tree and it should not be hard to do so will give that a go. As for the PP I'm going to aim to get No 2 closer to No 1 and there's also a 'pinkier' version on the cards. Once finished I post them on this thread.

The HDR thread of yours I had not followed because when first reading it the questions were way above my non existent knowledge of HDR. Subsequently I have read it thoroughly, ignoring the superfluous technicalities and found it a good lesson, as would be expected from Colin on reading and dealing with the range of a scene.

From my experience with sun, sky, shorelines and sea I do not remember ever taking an image that I would now consider decent having learnt the lesson that it is all about the light.

A bit more info about these images;

Official Sunrise for the day was 06:34
No 1 - shot 06:08 (26 mins before sunrise)
No 2 - shot 06:11 (23 mins before sunrise)
No 3 - shot 06:14 (20 mins before sunrise)

For No 1 & 2 I purposefully pushed the exposures as far to the right as I could go knowing that this would give me the greatest light on the tree at the sacrifice of making the rest of the scene brighter than it actually was. I have the same shot taken 4 minutes earlier which is a better representation of how the scene was with great definition of the sand ripples around the tree but there's a really weird colouring on part of the foreground water like an oil slick that ruins it I think.

Grahame

[bnnrcn]

Hi Grahame, it's a pity that I'm missing this thread because I haven't been online very often this week and I have to log off now. I just want to say that #1 is great and #2 might look great too with some more PP. I will read the other comments in this thread later. By

[Slipper]

Prefer the composition in #1 with the tree stronger. Good set though and great tree.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame, it's a pity that I'm missing this thread because I haven't been online very often this week and I have to log off now. I just want to say that #1 is great and #2 might look great too with some more PP. I will read the other comments in this thread later. By

Hi Binnur, thanks for commenting, hopefully I'll get the PP finals sorted soon.

[Stagecoach]

Prefer the composition in #1 with the tree stronger. Good set though and great tree.

Thanks John, it is a great tree for a subject, I just hope the locals do not use it for firewood

[ShaneS]

Thanks for the additional information on the shots Grahame...very helpful

One quick question, did you use manual focus due to the darkness or did auto work well or you?

I will look forward to seeing your additional edits.

You (and others) are inspiring me to go out early and I may try it this weekend. I don't have a lot of trees or driftwood but I do have lots of lava rock formations for foreground interest.

[TonyW]

These are beautiful images, as others have already said.

One of the reasons I am entering the discussion now is the point about using ACR to do as much as possible before using Photoshop. The more knowledgeable and fluent I become with Photoshop, the more I do with it and the less I worry about ACR. Is there an argument against that?

[Stagecoach]

Thanks for the additional information on the shots Grahame...very helpful

One quick question, did you use manual focus due to the darkness or did auto work well or you?

I will look forward to seeing your additional edits.

You (and others) are inspiring me to go out early and I may try it this weekend. I don't have a lot of trees or driftwood but I do have lots of lava rock formations for foreground interest.

Hi Shane,

I used Auto Focus and had no problems with it locking on.

Previously to these 'early morning' shots I always used manual focus for landscape, not because I mistrusted AF but because I was so used to and confident with that mode with my macro.

The 10-20 is not the easiest lens to focus in good light and when you also take into account the type of shots I'm concentrating on now where I'm working low, crouched or squatted makes it even harder. Some will suggest using live view but I never do for two reasons, one is that you would be laying on your stomach to view the screen (unless you have an articulated one) and secondly it takes time which is a luxury that is not there when light is changing so fast.

As my aim was to include foregrounds that were sharp I spent some time learning DOF and hyperfocal distances for the apertures and FLs I wanted to use which are primarily f/11 for IQ up to f/22 if I want to stop down that far to assist in water smoothing. What I'm finding is that in these light conditions the amount of water smoothing I want happens naturally at around 1 to 3 seconds.

So my procedure for focussing these was, single focus point centre, with the camera on the tripod and shot framed move the camera to focus on a point (along the tree or rocks) roughly 2 mtrs away, use BBF (back button focusing), move camera back to correct frame the shot and fire away. At f/11 at these WAs DOF is going to be everything from around 1/2 metre in front of the camera to infinity, it is not that critical. I also take a range of apertures whilst set up.

As for the edits I unfortunately read a chapter in a book I have today and my workflow has yet again changed for these and I may get them done today unless I go out tonight to take some fairground long exposures if the rain allows

Grahame

[ShaneS]

Thanks Grahame!

This is my frustration with live view and auto focus as well...

Some will suggest using live view but I never do for two reasons, one is that you would be laying on your stomach to view the screen (unless you have an articulated one) and secondly it takes time which is a luxury that is not there when light is changing so fast.

I have not yet ventured into back button focussing but I can see its usefulness in situations like this. I usually end up with wet knees and sand all over my lower half when I shoot at the beach. If I'm not careful the car will look like a sand pit soon despite my attempts to towel off before getting in

Fingers crossed the rain holds off so you get your fairground shots.

[Stagecoach]

These are beautiful images, as others have already said.

One of the reasons I am entering the discussion now is the point about using ACR to do as much as possible before using Photoshop. The more knowledgeable and fluent I become with Photoshop, the more I do with it and the less I worry about ACR. Is there an argument against that?

Tony, thank you for the compliment.

I am an absolute ludite when it comes to PP work and do everything I can in ACR (or ViewNX) because I'm told by our experts here it's the best thing to do to maintain image quality and for that reason I have no arguments.

As for photoshop I am still using version 7 of Elements (yes they laugh) and until such time as I find this is holding me back I have no plans to change.

I suppose the pertinent question is whatever workflow you use are you getting the image quality that's acceptable to you?

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

Thanks Grahame!

This is my frustration with live view and auto focus as well...

I have not yet ventured into back button focussing but I can see its usefulness in situations like this. I usually end up with wet knees and sand all over my lower half when I shoot at the beach. If I'm not careful the car will look like a sand pit soon despite my attempts to towel off before getting in

Fingers crossed the rain holds off so you get your fairground shots.

Shane, I purchased my D300 many years ago for the specific reason it had live view which I was told was a great asset with macro. It is one function I never ever use and find it a total waste of time simply because I do not need the hassle, my eyesight is fine whilst using the viewfinder. I regard it as a toy

Practice with BBF, it is fantastic for these types of shots and if a moving object suddenly comes into the scene that you want to capture simply keep the button pressed and you are on continuous focus.

Grahame

[Colin Southern]

Hi Grahame,

I'll throw in a few ideas for you:

1. Consider cropping off about the top 1/3 of each image; (a) it'll make the shot more panoramic (which is generally more pleasing to the eye), and (b) the clouds in the top 1/3 as they stand don't really add enough to the image to justify their existence.

2. I think you shutterspeed is in the "meh" range - consider coming up to something like 1/2 to 1 second if there's water streaming past the wood at the right time, or try for several minutes (or longer) that'll give you a surreal feel to the water and a "cool effect" with the clouds.

3. This is open to taste, but my gut feeling is that you could push the sliders quite a bit more in post to bring out the colour and textures.

Hope this helps.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Colin,

1. Agree the sky can be cropped and to be honest I had not worried about that only making sure I had captured enough of sea and sky in camera to be able to choose a crop later. I am also a bit cheeky in that rather than worry about the crop as I can never make my mind up, post it and I know I will get good advece

2. This shot was planned during the day and I had decided then that I would need an of FL 10 to 14 of which I know my Cokin filter holder will impact on so I did not aim for a silky surreal look with the ND fitted. It is of course an option for another shot with a longer FL now I don't think I need to worry so much about getting the main island separated left and right.

Agree 1/2 to 2 seconds is good for the streaming water but the only way I would have been able to achieve that in this ambient scenario would have been to push the ISO up very reluctantly. Opening up more may have impacted in the DOF, not looked at that one closely yet.

The problem with this scene is that tide and correct light do not coincide often, I had about 20 mins from water at the far end of the tree to getting clear before my camera went swimming.

3. Half an hour ago I finished a more colourful version but found it detracted from the tree but have to hold on this one now as off to the fair.

Grahame

[Colin Southern]

Hi Grahame,

1. Agree the sky can be cropped and to be honest I had not worried about that only making sure I had captured enough of sea and sky in camera to be able to choose a crop later. I am also a bit cheeky in that rather than worry about the crop as I can never make my mind up, post it and I know I will get good advece

Can't argue with that

2. This shot was planned during the day and I had decided then that I would need an of FL 10 to 14 of which I know my Cokin filter holder will impact on so I did not aim for a silky surreal look with the ND fitted. It is of course an option for another shot with a longer FL now I don't think I need to worry so much about getting the main island separated left and right.

The easy work-around for that is to just fire off a batch of shots (32, 64 etc) and average them in Photoshop - that'll give you a pseudo 5 or 6 stop ND filter; I did that with this shot (not a great one, but it illustrates the effect a little).



With a WA or UWA lens and a LONNNNGGGG exposure, you can end up with cool effects like this:

Agree 1/2 to 2 seconds is good for the streaming water but the only way I would have been able to achieve that in this ambient scenario would have been to push the ISO up very reluctantly. Opening up more may have impacted in the DOF, not looked at that one closely yet.

My suggestion is to work your butt off at the time and get as many combinations as you can. Additionally, 8 x 1 sec shots @ ISO 800 will give you the same noise and exposure as 1x 4 sec shot @ ISO 100 if you stack them in Photoshop.

The problem with this scene is that tide and correct light do not coincide often, I had about 20 mins from water at the far end of the tree to getting clear before my camera went swimming.

I hear ya - but - often (esp with WA and UWA lenses for seascapes) you'll need to get you and your tripod wet to "get the shot".

A couple of "case in points" ...

I left home at 3:30am and made my way - by torchlight - carrying 2 camera bags and a tripod - me in waders - to get these shots at dawn:





And I was wearing waders in about 3 feet of water to get these two (the first in a storm) ...





I had ice form on my camera bag after waiting for dawn from about 3:30am for this shot (after explaining to police what I was doing there in the middle of the night!)



And I stood - in my work trousers - in winter (kiwi) seawater for 20 minutes to get this shot:



So stop complaining ... the beauty of the shot lasts much longer than the pain of getting it (the money helps a lot too!).

[IzzieK]

Oh....all of these are very beautiful shots, Colin...when Grahame said 20 minutes before his camera swims in water, I actually thought of a fishing trousers but I let it go. That is really a good idea.

[arith]

I think the first one is stunning.

[Colin Southern]

Oh....all of these are very beautiful shots, Colin...when Grahame said 20 minutes before his camera swims in water, I actually thought of a fishing trousers but I let it go. That is really a good idea.

In all seriousness Izzie, I believe that one has to make the sacrifices and get the camera into places where a camera "ain't normally got into" to get the shot.

Joe McNally is the master of doing that ... if you'd like some inspiration, check out these - especially the shots he gets at the end ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23kcMySgpzg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEAKQFddTLI

[Colin Southern]

Grahame,

Quick "eg" ...

[MarieV]

I like what Colin has done to the tree but I still prefer if the clouds were not cropped as to me the original portrays a sense of depth and movement.