Long exposure

[bnnrcn]

I was going to edit this image in color but because I didn't have a shot with a longer exposure than this one, those rusty metal stuff looked really dark and dirty and I didn't want to lift the shadows .So, I converted it to BnW.

C&C appreciated as always

[ionian]

The water looks amazing Binnur, and the composition is great.

The highlights around the metal poles are not working for me, in particular because they look unnatural - the right hand one bleeds into the horizon. Can I suggest you look at other ways to lead the eye to your subjects? Maybe an exposure radial filter or graduated filter is worth trying.

It looks like your light is coming from the right of the image, and I may also consider lifting the shadows slightly on the right of the rocks to give more definition to the light source. A lightening of the sky towards the headland on the right may help with this as well.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Simon. There was actually not much light on the scene as the photo was shot after the sunset when it was getting dark. The existing little light was actually on the left hand side but because I had very dark subjects I pushed the soft contrast slider on the negative direction to make the darks visible and this caused a reverse effect on the light.The thing is I should have shot a longer exposure of the same scene and merge both exposures for a better look, but I didn't have enough time because the light was dissappearing That's why I had to PP it differently to get rid of the very dark parts.Next time I have to be more careful about my timing and shoot different long exposures of the same scene so that I can merge them for a better look.Long exposures seem easy but they are not really.

I think you are right about the higlights being too much , it is because when making shadow adjustments in PS I pushed the midtones slider too much and my vignette made the highlights stand out more,so I will step back . I might upload another version if it looks any better.Thanks for warning, sometimes I look at an image so much that I can't assess it anymore.

I'm actually happy with the composition. I want my subjects to act to lead the eyes to the empty see and horizon.

Thanks for looking and commenting

The water looks amazing Binnur, and the composition is great.

The highlights around the metal poles are not working for me, in particular because they look unnatural - the right hand one bleeds into the horizon. Can I suggest you look at other ways to lead the eye to your subjects? Maybe an exposure radial filter or graduated filter is worth trying.



It looks like your light is coming from the right of the image, and I may also consider lifting the shadows slightly on the right of the rocks to give more definition to the light source. A lightening of the sky towards the headland on the right may help with this as well.

[Manfred M]

Binnur - the first thing that strikes me in this image is the halos around the concrete(?) posts sticking out of the water. I find that strange and distracting. While I sometimes blur water in my shots, I usually try to preserve enough motion so that the viewer still feels he or she is looking at water; this super long (2 minute) exposure gives the image too much of an over-cooked look for my taste.

[Rebel]

I do like the composition, but I agree with Manfred and agree that the exposure is too long.

[John 2]

I like the composition Binnur but as others have pointed out, the halos around the posts don't feel right. I assume you have adjusted the mid tones using the Levels tool in PS. Try using the shadows Highlights tool instead. There is enough separation tonally to adjust both independently. Once there is more detail there, it might take a bit of sharpening - but watch those sharpening halos.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm actually happy with the composition. I want my subjects to act to lead the eyes to the empty see and horizon.

Agreed with that and the comments by the others.

I've never made a long exposure outdoors of anything other than waterfalls but I've seen lots of images made that way. For me in general, when the texture of the water is more like ripples than waves, I like a hint of ripples showing. When the texture is more like waves, I like the misty look that can be produced. I gather that in this scene the water was more like ripples. The resulting look displays neither texture nor the misty look and I think that explains why the water itself doesn't work for me.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for the comments

The halos don't come from sharpening as there is nearly no sharpening in my PP,but I think they come from the midtones adjustment in the shadows and highlights tool in PS. Also while trying to get rid of the darks in the image I might have pushed the sliders too much in SEP2. I stepped back a bit for a better look. I hope you find this one better.As I have already told Simon, if I had also had a longer exposure of the same scene , I could have merged the two images and you would have been seeing an image with a better IQ. Next time, I will sure try to do that.

My long exposure is not too long for that time of the day. I should have shot longer actually.As I already told Simon it was getting dark while shooting. I always remember Colin Southern's comments about long exposures. I remember once he suggesting me staying for shooting even if gets dark and I remember he showing me some of his long exposures which were about for 40 minutes. So, it depends on what time of day you shoot and what you want to achieve

The look of water may not be everyone's taste because there are no ripples or there isn't misty look of waves but there are a lot of long exposure images with smooth water like this one and the sea was calm already that day. So , sorry for not making you very happy about the look of the water I actually like the smooth look of the water

After editing some images that I shot in Autumn and when the weather gets warmer, I will start shooting only long exposures for some time to get experienced about them more. So, we all might be discussing and learning about it more

PS. BTW for the people who don't know Colin Southern, he was a Mod in CinC and he was very experienced in long exposures.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Binnur. I'm one who does like this type of foggy/misty effect on water. Nicely composed as other have said. The processing anomalies are still there in the second version. I don't use PS so have no suggestions as to what's causing them.

If you want detail in the shadows via blending two images, there doesn't need to be any commonality whatsoever in the setting between the two (unless you're using a lens that will alter apparent focal length when focusing). My point is that it doesn't necessarily require a longer exposure to bring out the detail. You can crank up the ISO and use a wider aperture as well.

[Mike Buckley]

I actually like the smooth look of the water

That's really the only thing that matters.

[JBW]

stunning. At full size the halos pretty much disappear. If it was pp that created them it was just a bit too much.

[DanK]

In this image, I find the silky water to be appealing, and the composition is striking, but I agree with the others about the halos. I would try a different approach to tonal adjustments to see if you can get rid of them.

[Rebel]

Thanks for the comments

The halos don't come from sharpening as there is nearly no sharpening in my PP,but I think they come from the midtones adjustment in the shadows and highlights tool in PS. Also while trying to get rid of the darks in the image I might have pushed the sliders too much in SEP2. I stepped back a bit for a better look. I hope you find this one better.As I have already told Simon, if I had also had a longer exposure of the same scene , I could have merged the two images and you would have been seeing an image with a better IQ. Next time, I will sure try to do that.

My long exposure is not too long for that time of the day. I should have shot longer actually.As I already told Simon it was getting dark while shooting. I always remember Colin Southern's comments about long exposures. I remember once he suggesting me staying for shooting even if gets dark and I remember he showing me some of his long exposures which were about for 40 minutes. So, it depends on what time of day you shoot and what you want to achieve

The look of water may not be everyone's taste because there are no ripples or there isn't misty look of waves but there are a lot of long exposure images with smooth water like this one and the sea was calm already that day. So , sorry for not making you very happy about the look of the water I actually like the smooth look of the water

After editing some images that I shot in Autumn and when the weather gets warmer, I will start shooting only long exposures for some time to get experienced about them more. So, we all might be discussing and learning about it more

PS. BTW for the people who don't know Colin Southern, he was a Mod in CinC and he was very experienced in long exposures.

When I said the exposure is too long, I meant specifically for the aesthetic look of the water for my personal taste

[Shadowman]

Looks good as is, nicely done.

[Wavelength]

This is 90% great and remaining 10% for those wise suggestions

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for looking and commenting Dan IMO if I shorten the exposure time too much then the outcome wouldn't fit the long exposure shot very well and I would have difficulty in blending them. May be something in between would work though.I will try your suggestion next time.Thanks for the idea.

Hi, Binnur. I'm one who does like this type of foggy/misty effect on water. Nicely composed as other have said. The processing anomalies are still there in the second version. I don't use PS so have no suggestions as to what's causing them.

If you want detail in the shadows via blending two images, there doesn't need to be any commonality whatsoever in the setting between the two (unless you're using a lens that will alter apparent focal length when focusing). My point is that it doesn't necessarily require a longer exposure to bring out the detail. You can crank up the ISO and use a wider aperture as well.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for looking and commenting Brian. Yes the PP work was a bit harsh on this one

stunning. At full size the halos pretty much disappear. If it was pp that created them it was just a bit too much.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks for looking and commenting Dan.I might give it a go later

In this image, I find the silky water to be appealing, and the composition is striking, but I agree with the others about the halos. I would try a different approach to tonal adjustments to see if you can get rid of them.

[bnnrcn]

I will shoot long exposures in the future again Matt. You might like the ones with rough sea if you don't like the smooth water. If I can manage to get some decent shots of course..

When I said the exposure is too long, I meant specifically for the aesthetic look of the water for my personal taste

[bnnrcn]

Thanks John, may be not to everyone's taste but I'm glad that you like it

Looks good as is, nicely done.