Rocks at Stoerhead

[Donald]

A long exposure image of what was a pretty wild sea.

The piece of land at the bottom left was a real nuisance, but I made the decision to go with the image anyway as I felt the potential was there to create something that could carry that intrusion into the frame. What do you think?

My aim was to create a mystical, ethereal feel with the white water and, particularly, it flowing over the rocks. I wanted to hold onto some detail in both the white water and the sea beyond, so worked with a shutter speed that I felt would achieve that. I did not want anything that was devoid of any detail and was just a flat expanse of tone.

So, with the knowledge of what I was trying to do, I'd welcome your assessment and critique of my objective and how well, or otherwise, I did in achieving it.

[Wavelength]

Masterly...... a bit rotation, clockwise

[RList]

That rock down on the left, should not bother anyone. What we are after are dreams and I got one here. Nice, Donald.

[bje07]

If the LHS rock bothers you you can easily delete by cloning
What questions me is the fact that the rocks appear dry (not wetted by the waves) while the sea is rough
I like the line formed by the three rocks.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[mugge]

Donald, I think your shutter speed was just perfect to get your desired effect. How about cropping the 'dry rock" retaining a bit of the rock RHS? Just a thought or maybe not. I love it.
Cheers Ole

[Donald]

What questions me is the fact that the rocks appear dry (not wetted by the waves) while the sea is rough

Don't know how to explain that, Jean. They were very wet. Perhaps the long exposure is responsible for creating that effect.

[billtils]

Like it as it is - you achieved your goal.

[ccphoto]

I agree to the slight rotation for a straighter horizon line but I also think perhaps you went a bit too long. I've has similar issues with extended exposures and the "rocks" or other objects appearing dry while everything around them is seemingly wet, though at these kind of times, even the water loses that feel of "water," and it just becomes a misting effect. I'd reshoot and go for about 30% less exposure time, give or take 10%.

[ccphoto]

Here is a tutorial on how to achieve a more balanced long exposure shot. it does involve Photoshop, but I am sure with your long-time relationship with Gimp, you can adjust accordingly.

https://gregbenzphotography.com/land...s-in-photoshop

Be sure to watch the attached video that goes with the written tutorial.

[Mike Buckley]

Everything you hoped to achieve works for me. The rock formation in the lower left corner doesn't bother me insofar as the composition is concerned, but I would like to see the same amount of detail in it that is displayed in the other rock formations.

[Mike Buckley]

I just now looked at a photo of mine of a rock formation and a wave crashing on it with all of the action completely stopped by a fast shutter speed. The rock appears bone dry even though I know it was completely soaked. I suppose I could have made it look wet by not using a polarizer to eliminate glare, but I hate glare. My point is that I doubt that using a shorter exposure would have made your rock formations look wet.

[ccphoto]

I just now looked at a photo of mine of a rock formation and a wave crashing on it with all of the action completely stopped by a fast shutter speed. The rock appears bone dry even though I know it was completely soaked. I suppose I could have made it look wet by not using a polarizer to eliminate glare, but I hate glare. My point is that I doubt that using a shorter exposure would have made your rock formations look wet.

I just went through every long exposure shot I've made to see if my rocks looked wet or dry, and I think you're on to something here. Mine also look dry. This is why the next time I do LE's, I'm going to follow the Greg Benz video method so I can get a more dynamic "wet" feel.

[Mike Buckley]

I didn't review the Benz video but I have carefully reviewed the sample photo that is displayed before starting the video. The rock formations in that image don't appear wet.

[Mike Buckley]

I've done some more thinking about this issue of wet rock formations appearing wet. Water that is fundamentally transparent has the same photographic properties of glass that is fundamentally transparent, and I've spent considerable time photographing transparent glass. The fact that water covering a rock, as opposed to water cascading over the top of it in a motion the human eye perceives, is fundamentally transparent inherently means that we won't see that wet covering. Therefore, we won't see that the rock formation appears wet if there are no reflections in the water covering it.

If we were photographing a wet rock in a studio situation, we could add a reflection to the water covering it using the exact same method and outcome as adding a reflection to a transparent glass. The human brain would probably perceive that reflection as an indication that the surface of the rock formation is wet. (I've never tried it.)

I do know that when sunlight is directly reflected in the water covering a rock formation, we call it glare and that the human brain perceives that glare as an indication that the rock formation is wet. However, that glare also disguises the color, texture and shape of the rock formation. So, photographers like me who prefer to display all three of those characteristics use a polarizer to eliminate as much of the glare as possible.

In conclusion, if you want the rock formation to appear wet, ensure that at least some glare is present and be willing to accept the compromise that the glare will disguise the color, shape and texture of the rock underneath the covering of water.

[ccphoto]

I didn't review the Benz video but I have carefully reviewed the sample photo that is displayed before starting the video. The rock formations in that image don't appear wet.

No, they do not but with all the added "spray" areas, it has more of a feel of water moving over a rocky area.

[bje07]

I just now looked at a photo of mine of a rock formation and a wave crashing on it with all of the action completely stopped by a fast shutter speed. The rock appears bone dry even though I know it was completely soaked. I suppose I could have made it look wet by not using a polarizer to eliminate glare, but I hate glare. My point is that I doubt that using a shorter exposure would have made your rock formations look wet.

I checked in my pictures and found one at 1 s of long exposure at seaside.
Donald, I don't want to pollute your thread so if you want I'll delete this post on demand.
As Mike suspects, it may be a reason (here no polarizer)


Of course in addition the sun was shining and the sea less rough.

[Jim A]

Very good, Donald. You should think of entering this competition with one of your images, if you are not already doing so -
http://www.sailscotland.co.uk/news/p...o-competition/

[bnnrcn]

Hi Donald I know that you like square frames , so my comment may not mean anything to you. If the image was mine I would clone the rock at the bottom left corner and I would crop the rock at the bottom right corner to go for a vertical frame.