Early Wake Up Call 2

[ShaneS]

Still struggling with composition and uncooperative clouds but I gave it a whirl again with a 4:30AM wake up call and here is the first shot that I processed from this morning.



Each shot was taken at f8 2 seconds ISO 100 18mm (on a crop format camera) taken about 20 minutes before sunrise.

Since I don't have an ND filter I tried Colin's suggestion and combined four images to smooth out the water while not blowing out the sky. I added a levels adjustment to to foreground and a bit of a curve to the sky separately and then did a little bit of dodging on the really dark areas. I was really cautious about making the image too bright as I wanted to retain that sunrise feeling and lighting so the adjustments were relatively minor.

I think that I see a bit of a bump in the center of the horizon that I need to take care of but I would like to hear what you think before I go any further...

[Nicks Pics]

Very nice seen. I like the rocks and the sand and the other components too. The picture doesn't really tell me what time of day it is itself, maybe it is brighter than you would think before sunrise would look, but you were there, you would know better. Nice seascape.

[Shadowman]

Nice effort.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Shane , I hope you won't be angry with me after reading my comment I would crop the whole sky because it competes with lovely rocks and sand formations. If you have such an energetic FG , IMO you need a less powerful and soft sky to balance the image. The crop I have suggested might also work as B&W.

[Mike Buckley]

Lots and lots of potential in this image and well worth the early wake up call. The texture in the foreground sand is so good that I want to see a much larger image to be able to fully appreciate it. I agree with Binnur's thinking except that I would modify "might also work as B&W" to will definitely work as that.

[ShaneS]

Thank you for taking the time to comment Nick, John, Binnur and Mike.

Binnur I am never angry when I read your comments for a couple of reasons...one, in order to improve I want to hear the harsh truth as I feel that I am at a point in my development where that it what is needed. At this point I am struggling with 'seeing' a composition but my efforts of late have been encouraging in that I am capturing the image better from a technical standpoint. That part I am happy with! Secondly, you always present the reasoning behind your thoughts and use kind words.

Now if I could align the technical with the compositional I might be happier!

So, to your comment about the sky. I agree that this sky is not the best and I was disappointed in that as well so I framed the shot pretty much as you see it here. I cropped a little bit all the way around but about half the sky that I originally captured for the reasons that you state. I am struggling with the idea of cropping out the sky in its entirety though as the outcroppings pop just slightly above the horizon line and it looks funny to me to crop to the horizon. What do you think? How far into the water would you crop? What about leaving just a sliver of sky above the outcroppings? That looks OK to me in the light box.

I may have a shot where they are below the horizon line so I will go back and look at the shots to see if that is the case.

I will take a look at a black and white conversion for both Binnur and Mike but I will say that I do love the lushness (not sure if that is the right word, I was going to say velvety) feeling that the sand has in color/texture and I'm not sure that it will translate will into black and white to be honest.

So, now if I could only get a day where I am willing to get up at 4:30AM, mother nature cooperates AND I am on my game as far as composition goes then I might capture THE image! I think this is the landscape photographers dream day and one that doesn't happen often it seems...at least not yet for me - but I will continue to get out there and one day it will all come together

[bnnrcn]

What about this one Shane ?

I cropped from right and left too in order to make the sand and rock formations stand out. I wouldn't worry about the sky too much because you can go and shoot again, but because the rock formations have a lot of details , IMO a less dramatic and plain sky suits the image more and the sky won't compete with the rocks in such a frame.

If you have a dramatic and lovely sky next time , than you might as well have less rocks and a big sky in your frame .


If I were you I would also try below crop in B&W in order to improve my conversion skills.I like trying and playing with things, that's why I say so. You have the color version anyway and you don't lose anything by trying and seeing how things work. Just an idea..

PS. The crop looks a bit soft , I think it is because I cropped the JPG version.

[csa mt]

The crop is nice; but for my liking, I prefer the OP's with the sky. The clouds are interesting, and give the rest of the image a little more pizzazz. Just my humble opinion.

[ShaneS]

I'm not a big fan of the image with all the sky removed although I appreciate your efforts in that regard Binnur. I also appreciate the fact that you made me go look at the image again with a more critical eye.

What I did do is leave a sliver of the sky in the image which for me works better. I also uploaded it at a larger size per your request Mike. I welcome other opinions on the subject though



And here is my mono version for Mike & Binnur although I must admit I don't 'see' this image in black and white so it was difficult for me to create the conversion...



I did find another image where the rock formations did not break the plane of the horizon but I did not capture anywhere near as much foreground in the scene. So, a different shot from the same location with no sky for discussion purposes.

[Donald]

What I did do is leave a sliver of the sky in the image which for me works better. I also uploaded it at a larger size per your request Mike. I welcome other opinions on the subject though

For me, this is the 'stand-out' image in the set. It's also a good example of something working that doesn't follow the rules; i.e. that sliver of sky right at the top shouldn't work, but it does ... I think.

By keeping that in we see the scale and setting more clearly. But the sky doesn't distract from the almost abstract quality of the main subject - that lovely interplay and pattern of rock, sand and water.

[bnnrcn]

IMO B&W needs more treatment for a better look but please don't ask me how because I'm a beginner in B&W images and it takes time to improve. IMO your crop is better Ialso like the last image and I would convert it to B&W , but it is me who likes playing with B&W images recently. The more I get into photography the more I want to try

[Stagecoach]

Hi Shane,

You have a great location there for exploring but it seems that the morning light is not co-operating ideally at this time, nothing you can do about that.

As for composition, and not my strong point by any means, I wonder if you concentrated here on getting things too symmetrical and balanced with the higher rocks left and right? Looking at the lower ledges coming from the outer higher rocks towards the centre they may have been a good spot to concentrate on the flowing water over them?

As for crops of the original, I consider you have two possibilities to explore, cropping part of the sky but not as severe as you have done or leaving the sky as is and cropping the bottom to remove the plain sand area thus anchoring the rock to the bottom of the image.

We then come to water speed, I'm wondering if when we go for the long exposure smooth/silky water look it then has to become a 'main' feature of the image commanding more prominence and not a small area as in this one? I prefer No 2 water with the lower 2" exposure but that's a personal choice.

Both the first and second images are good and hopefully this location is not too far from you as it certainly has some perfect potential.

Hopefully the above are some ideas to consider as it's clear you now have the technical side sorted, foreground to infinity sharp and exposure. Out of interest what height has your camera been from the ground?

Grahame

[ShaneS]

Thank you Binnur, Graham and Donald. Based on Grahame's comments I will now present a wider crop of the same shot with less water smoothing (only one of the 4 shots used in the first) which I think addresses the point of view issue. The sky is still intact but I lost some of the foreground sand. Better?



The challenge that I had with this scene is that if I moved the the right to really follow the lines of the sand/lava the beach parking lot and some additional shoreline was in the image on the left. Not good

I think that the sight lines are improved in this image as the line of the wave mirrors the lines of the sand the the outcropping on the left keeps the eye in the image.

The camera was as low as I could get it without reversing the center column and risking a rogue wave hitting the camera. It was also pointed slightly downward to minimize the sky in the composition. My butt got wet despite trying to sit on my raincoat if that gives me any brownie points with the 'get lower' crowd

Mother nature just needs to cooperate a little better when I make the effort to get up at 4:30AM!

[Mike Buckley]

I also agree that the color version with the small sliver of sky is the best version so far. More than that, it's a really wonderful image.

I believe an equally good black-and-white version of it can be made. Even so, if the color of the sand is important, I see no reason to convert to monochrome. That's because the color version is so close to being like a tinted monochrome that converting to monochrome isn't going to do anything more to bring out the textures, lines and shapes in the image.

The reason the black-and-white version already presented doesn't work for me is that the bright areas draw my eye too far beyond the foreground, which for me is vitally important whether or not it's presented in color.

Thank you for providing the larger version. The image is just too good to provide in only a small version.

If you add more versions, please number all of the versions in the thread so we can more easily reference them.

[FootLoose]

Shane, I can't help but wonder why the scene is so bright, particularly the sky. At a half-hour before sunrise I would expect to see much more colour in the sky and darkness in the clouds. So I had a quick play with your file with the hope of putting some colour and detail there. This was just 3 very quick curves layers - sky, midground and foreground. Ignore the garish blue hues, but I think this shows the possibilities for the sky and the reflections in the water in the shoreline rocks.

[ShaneS]

Thank you Mike. I will leave that one in color and call but I did make what I think is a good conversion of the image with no sky that I will post in another thread for C&C so stay tuned.

EDIT: I was puttering about the house and realized how much your words meant to me and I had to come back to tell you so.

it's a really wonderful image

and

The image is just too good to provide in only a small version

This is probably the most technically correct image that I have ever captured and that is a big accomplishment for me so I will be basking in the glory of those words for little while just to remind myself that what I want to do with a camera IS possible. Heartfelt thanks!

[ShaneS]

Greg, based on your comments I went back to look at the raw file with no adjustments and what you see here is pretty much what the camera saw. There is a fraction of an increase in the overall brightness due to the added contrast applied to make everything pop but that's it. I too was surprised at how fast it got light and wonder if it has something to do with the fact that I live near the equator and the angle of the sun to the horizon is less. If that is correct, then to get deeper colors with less light in the sky I would need to be out even earlier or possibly in the winter months?

Something for me to research or maybe others on at CiC have ideas on that...

[ShaneS]

Grahame,

Can you help me out understanding the angle of light and shooting times with regard to my position close to the equator? Greg brings up a good point but I can't wrap my head around it and I was thinking that with all the research you put into your shots your might have a better understanding of the subject.

I would also like to get your opinion on the shot with less water smoothing and preferred cop so far if you have a moment.

Big thanks or mahalo as we say in Hawaii.

[FootLoose]

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that I live near the equator and the angle of the sun to the horizon is less. If that is correct, then to get deeper colors with less light in the sky I would need to be out even earlier or possibly in the winter months?

Well, I had to google Hawaii to see where you are: N19.34 -- and I am S34. So you are a bit closer to the equator, but probably more importantly as we are in the last week of winter, you must on the end of summer. The sunrises here are certainly less spectacular in the summer months. (In summer, the light at 6.00am is as bright as midday.) So, I think you are probably on the right track, Shane: get up earlier or wait until winter

[bnnrcn]

Hi Shane It is more difficult to shoot sunsets or sunrises in summer time here in Turkey too. The angle of the sun is different from other seasons so I'm waiting for Autumn to come for better scenes too .

I still prefer the composition in post#9 to the one in post #13 , because #9 puts the emphasis on the lava formations and sand more. #13 has nice elements like clouds, moving water and lava formations but IMO when you have them all in one composition, I'm distracted by them.