Pacific Coast Seascape at Twilight

[dmichaud]

Got this shot last night in Davenport, California, taken 10 minutes after sunset.



Canon 50D
ISO 100, f/10, 0.4 sec @ 16mm EFL
Singh-Ray 3 stop reverse ND grad with Lee filter holder

I would appreciate any and all feedback.

Thanks,
Dave

[jeeperman]

I think it rocks.....pun not really intended. Beautiful shot!

[tihsgod]

Hi Dave, a lot of good things about this.

composition is really very nice... To do it again differently?.. hmmmm... I think I would prefer it without the spit of land right hand side. It would make the big rock even more powerful... but I guess you get the sunset a little unbalanced so I can understand your framing here. Portrait might be interesting?

0.4 sec looks great! Couldn't be better.

I like the blue in the water v the red sky. However main issue to me is that overall colours appear a little washed out, especially the foreground rocks. Maybe you could lose some detail in those and let them stand darker? Perhaps they would frame the other areas of the photo, being the most interesting parts, better?

neil

[Sahil]

So surreal! Love the Shot, Dave.

[pwnage101]

Wow, this is amazing! I cannot think of a single bit of criticism. You nailed the exposure: black and white clipping points are perfect, as well as brightness and contrast. Colors are brilliant as well. Did you do any post-processing?

Hypothetical:
Disregarding subject motion, do you think this shot could have been possible with bracketing instead of a GND filter? Of course you would need to create an HDR composite and apply a curves adjustment layer with a gradient mask, but this theoretically gives the same effect, right? I get the feeling the colors would be slightly different.

[whited3]

Lovely shot. My only comment is that the shore rocks in the foreground could be sharper, but it may be just the Flickr link doing this.

[Donald]

Dave - You have got yourself a beauty there. My compliments.

I note the comments made re maybe giving the rocks in the foreground as bit more 'oomph'. It's a matter of taste, but I wouldn't touch them. I think you've presented the finished article. For me, it's the subtlety in the colour and tone that makes it

[rebeccalouisephotography]

This is stunning, now why can't my dad take me places like these?

[Donald]

This is stunning, now why can't my dad take me places like these?

'cause he's just a grumpy, tight-fisted, stick-in-the-mud. The best you can hope for is a cold night out in Warrington.

[dmichaud]

Thanks for the feedback folks, much appreciated!
@neil, good idea on leaving out the spit of land, right hand side. will try that next time (will also try portrait), thanks for the suggestions. also, liked the idea of darkening the foreground rocks a bit. see new version below.
@troy, i suppose one could get this type of shot with several exposures, instead of the GND, but I prefer seeing the result in camera. also, when you're in the surf on slippery rocks working the scene, I like getting a single exposure. yes, I did some local curves adjustments, color balance, and sharpening in post.
@mark. try the higher res version at flickr to see the sharpness of the rocks, seems good to me.


[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmichaud/5425391622/]Davenport Beach Twilight

Higher Resolution Version here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmichau...1622/lightbox/

Thanks!
Dave

[JK6065]

What a great capture Dave!
The colours are so beautiful and the exposure of the water is spot on.
The piece of land on the right hand side doesn't bother me at all. Though what 'bothers' me is that the image looks a bit flat and dull to me. With only minor adjustments of local contrast and sharpness the already great photo could get much better (for my taste).

I hope you don't mind me doing this, but here's my interpretation:



click on it for the full size, that one looks better.

I took a look on your flickr account and I was stunned by the amount of great photographs on it. All such beautiful landscapes!

[dmichaud]

Hi Jeroen, Thanks so much for taking the time to make a few edits. I agree, something about my version just doesn't "pop", but I really like what you've done! When you say "minor adjustments to local contrast", are these local contrast adjustments using masks or a "global" adjustment to increase "local contrast"? I've got a lot to learn about PS! Also, what type of sharpening did you use?

Cheers,
Dave

[Wirefox]

'cause he's just a grumpy, tight-fisted, stick-in-the-mud. The best you can hope for is a cold night out in Warrington.

She has been to places like this. It is just that she wasn't looking at the time I am quite sure Warrington would look just like that if it was n't where it is

[mythlady]

Hey Dave -- you're right in my neighborhood. What a great shot -- I echo what everyone else has said. Beautiful.

[ilovelucydog]

Great shot.

[JK6065]

Hi Jeroen, Thanks so much for taking the time to make a few edits. I agree, something about my version just doesn't "pop", but I really like what you've done! When you say "minor adjustments to local contrast", are these local contrast adjustments using masks or a "global" adjustment to increase "local contrast"? I've got a lot to learn about PS! Also, what type of sharpening did you use?

Cheers,
Dave

I might not be exactly right in the terminology in my previous post, though here is what I did:
I added a curves adjustment layer with an slight s shape to define de shadows a bit more and give them some 'drama'. I also pushed the highlights a little bit up to define some of the highlights, for example on the rocks in the front.
After that I used unsharp mask (about 160% at a radius of 0.3) for the sharpening and after that I used again the unsharp mask with a radius of about 35 with at about 10% to bring up the micro contrast.
(I find that a really efficient way to give a photo that little extra. So USM with a radius of 35-40, depending on the image size, at 10-15%)
With the history brush I undid both USM's for the edges of the large rock in the sea. Otherwise it would have too much of a white halo around it due to (excessive) sharpening.

And about learning about PS: there are a lot of knowledge an experience about that available on this forum. Also the tutorials are some helpful. It's great that they don't just show a technique but also explain what it is about and how it works.

[dmichaud]

Thanks Jeroen, much appreciated!

Dave

[pwnage101]

How come the exif data shows this shot was taken at 10mm? Is this correct? You didn't LIE did you?

[Colin Southern]

Any better?

[dmichaud]

How come the exif data shows this shot was taken at 10mm? Is this correct? You didn't LIE did you?

Hi Troy, It was 10mm on a Canon 50D which has a cropped sensor (1.6 ratio), so I did the math (16mm) and gave the "effective" focal length (EFL), which is the equivalent focal length for a 35mm film camera or a 35mm full frame sensor like the Canon 5D. So, 10mm on this camera is the same as 16mm on a "normal" 35mm camera. I think this the best way to think about focal lengths, comparing apples to apples.