Shooting into the light

[Donald]

Shooting into the light always entices me. I don't do enough of it, but need to force myself to do so.

Shooting directly into a bright sun reflecting on water and still holding detail on the land, is a challenge.

Some people may wonder about the uneven horizon. That's the top of a wave coming in.

Your comments on the image (the light, the composition, the effect, etc) always appreciated.

Stoer Fank (Fank (def) - A Sheep Pen)

[Shadowman]

Nice shot, a bit crispy on the water; the sun must be directly above. Did you capture any with the sun slightly out of the composition, I feel the water would be a bit more appealing?

[joebranko]

Would a graduated ND filter help bring out more detail in the water?

[Wavelength]

I really liked the foreground and the fence; but in spite of your explanation the unevenness of the horizon looks odd, i am afraid......

[bje07]

The fence and poles seem not sharp, may be due to overexposure?
IMO, the pole on LHS should be entire.

[Donald]

Nice shot, a bit crispy on the water; the sun must be directly above. Did you capture any with the sun slightly out of the composition, I feel the water would be a bit more appealing?

Shot timed at 16:53, so the sun is not directly above. Not sure what you mean by the sun being out of the composition. It's not in it.

Would a graduated ND filter help bring out more detail in the water?

Possibly. Do you think it needs more detail?

The fence and poles seem not sharp, may be due to overexposure?
IMO, the pole on LHS should be entire.

I think everything is sharp.

[Shadowman]

Shot timed at 16:53, so the sun is not directly above. Not sure what you mean by the sun being out of the composition. It's not in it.

Donald,

Shot looked as if sun was directly above and perhaps cropped out.

[Donald]

Donald,

Shot looked as if sun was directly above and perhaps cropped out.

I understand. No, the sun was never in the frame. It is out to my right hand side at, according to The Photographer's Ephemeris, 26 degrees.

[Mike Buckley]

There is a significant dip in the top of the bright water on the left side about one-fourth of the way in from the frame. It would be fun to see that area of the image displayed at 100% of the full-size file. That's because I think I see a flat horizon across the entire frame that is not brightly lit that is slightly distinguishable from the sky. I would expect to see a flat horizon unless the waves are really high, and the waves don't seem to be that high in the scene.

[paintingwithlight]

Donald,

Shooting into the light is a situation where I would usually bracket my exposures and generate an HDR image. You are opting to not do so. Why not? I don't mean to imply that you are making a mistake - I am sure that you could generate an HDR image if you wanted to, but for some reason you didn't want to. Why didn't you want to generate an HDR image? I am trying to "see what you see."

Michael

[Donald]

Donald,

Shooting into the light is a situation where I would usually bracket my exposures and generate an HDR image. You are opting to not do so. Why not? I don't mean to imply that you are making a mistake - I am sure that you could generate an HDR image if you wanted to, but for some reason you didn't want to. Why didn't you want to generate an HDR image? I am trying to "see what you see."

Simply because I like to do it in one frame. If I have a high dynamic range that I need to tame, I use GND filters. But given the dynamic range of cameras nowadays, I think there is rarely a need to resort to HDR techniques nor to use GNDs.

In the case of this image, I wanted the effect that you see here.

[Donald]

I would expect to see a flat horizon unless the waves are really high,.......

Good point, Mike.

[James G]

I think I see a flat horizon across the entire frame that is not brightly lit that is slightly distinguishable from the sky.

I think this epitomises the difficulties, navigators using sextants back in the 18th an 19C, must have had finding the horizon at noon. At least Donald had a stable base to operate from

Personally, I like the contrasts in the image I can almost feel my eyeballs reacting to the dazzle. And I particularly enjoy 'minimalist' seascapes. Despite the brightness of the reflections, I get a feeling that it was not the warmest of days. Offshore breeze maybe?

[Donald]

I get a feeling that it was not the warmest of days. Offshore breeze maybe?

The far North West of Scotland in April is NOT a place and time to start removing heavy jumpers and jackets. Indeed it was pretty chilly.

[Manfred M]

If I have a high dynamic range that I need to tame, I use GND filters. But given the dynamic range of cameras nowadays, I think there is rarely a need to resort to HDR techniques nor to use GNDs.

Donald - Let me add a slightly different twist to the GND / "do it in post" argument. I use both approaches and there is merit in doing things in post AND using an GND filter during capture.

First of all, my rectangular Lee GNDs do not look anything like a gradient in PP. They one shade with a small transition zone between the filtered area and the clear area (I have both hard and soft grads), so the image I get using them is not as easy to emulate in PP. I have a couple of B+W circular grads that are more gradient like and give a similar effect.

Dynamic range issues aside, a physical grad is going to give you totally different data in the capture versus doing this in post processing. I find that I prefer the effect of using a physical grad when shooting overcast days as this gives me better textures in the sky versus what I can get in PP.

[Dave Humphries]

The lumpy 'horizon' is an oddity, but I think I can imagine the situation; the distance & wave height - and the (unseen) slope of the water between wave top and shore, which is catching the suns rays.

The 'real' distant horizon is presumably obscured by the wave?


Regarding composition; I think it works and I couldn't improve it by moving this around my screen in LyteBox.

That said, as it's you, I did 'play' with a square crop, taken from the lower right corner
I couldn't make up my mind whether to include just the posts crossed by the diagonal, or include one more on the left.

HTH, Dave

[Donald]

That said, as it's you, I did 'play' with a square crop, taken from the lower right corner
I couldn't make up my mind whether to include just the posts crossed by the diagonal, or include one more on the left.

One of the things I forced myself to do on that trip to the north-west was not just look for square compositions. So, this was very deliberate. I'm greatly helped in that by the fact that I can set the viewfinder/back screen view in the Canon 5DS to a range of ratios, 1:1 and 16:9 being two of them. So this is exactly as composed at the time of capture.

[Dave Humphries]

One of the things I forced myself to do on that trip to the north-west was not just look for square compositions. So, this was very deliberate.

Yeah I know, I was teasing

I'm greatly helped in that by the fact that I can set the viewfinder/back screen view in the Canon 5DS to a range of ratios, 1:1 and 16:9 being two of them. So this is exactly as composed at the time of capture.

Yes, that must help a lot to get the framing right in camera.

Does the RAW still come out 3:2 and requires a PP crop though?
Or does the metadata and RAW convertor recognise the choice made and similarly crop it automatically?

Just curious, Dave

[Donald]

Does the RAW still come out 3:2 and requires a PP crop though?
Or does the metadata and RAW convertor recognise the choice made and similarly crop it automatically?

If you use Canon's own DPP processing software, it does.

However, I use DxO Optics to process my raw files and in that case you do see the full frame. However, the ratio you chose and used to compose in camera is centred on the centre spot of the frame. When you dial in 16:9, 5:4, 1:1, etc in the raw processor, it too is centred on the centre spot of the frame, so you immediately get the image as you composed it in-camera.