Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: maddogmurph on March 18, 2017, 07:54:10 pm
-
The constant battle of the photographer and the waves. Trying to catch just the right motions, without getting wet, is really just foolish. I think if I had any advice for a new seascape photographer, it would be, expect to get wet, use a ten stop filter, and just play with different shutter speeds until you're consistently getting something that you like, and don't get your $5,000 camera wet with sea water. Because salt water and electronics ... well they just don't mix. I was shooting an XT1 next to a rock once in San Diego and took the equivalent of a bucket of sea water on the camera. It still worked fine, weather sealed, but over time things began sticking. Doesn't matter the camera, sea water is eventual death. It will also probably kill your tripod. The price we pay I suppose.
I like this shot because I was alone this night. No one else there. Such a beautiful place, and wonderful soft light to be alone. I fully expected the usual hordes. No one. Not sure why, don't care, it was relaxing to not have to worry about being in anyone's way and not have to stake out my spot. I think I love freedom in general, so when expecting to be bogged down, it's nice to have wings and be able to flutter a bit.
Unknown simply speaks for itself as a metaphor.
-
Wet Feet is quite nice, but the real winner here (for me) is Unknown.
It is very expressive and mysterious.
-
Wet Feet is quite nice, but the real winner here (for me) is Unknown.
It is very expressive and mysterious.
+1
Thierry
-
Both very nice, Murph.
-
The first image has the mood. Although I'm ambivalent about the 'open' band of blue sky.
-
'Unknown' for me. Well done.
-
Could something like Wet Feet be done with stacking instead of an ND filter? Or would that not yield the same continuous flow in the water?
-
#1 without the blue sky? Maybe...
#2 seems not level?
Both nice.
-
Could something like Wet Feet be done with stacking instead of an ND filter? Or would that not yield the same continuous flow in the water?
The key with any sea scape is to be able to keep the shutter open anywhere from 4/10 of a second to 4 seconds - unless you want a completely smooth look which would require more like 30 seconds. A 10 stop can barely do 30 seconds in broad daylight.
With this shot taken at dusk with cloud cover, shooting iso 100, and f8 a 5stop filter would be ideal. The shot I took here was 4-seconds F5.6 iso200 w/ a 10-stop - I had to open it up a bit more than I'd like because I only had a 10-stop.
Typically people refer to stacking as focus stacking. This is a single shot. You could however, shoot for the water. Then shoot for the sky. And composite the two. But at the end of the day you still need a ND to create the movement in the water as far as I know.
-
The key with any sea scape is to be able to keep the shutter open anywhere from 4/10 of a second to 4 seconds - unless you want a completely smooth look which would require more like 30 seconds. A 10 stop can barely do 30 seconds in broad daylight.
With this shot taken at dusk with cloud cover, shooting iso 100, and f8 a 5stop filter would be ideal. The shot I took here was 4-seconds F5.6 iso200 w/ a 10-stop - I had to open it up a bit more than I'd like because I only had a 10-stop.
Typically people refer to stacking as focus stacking. This is a single shot. You could however, shoot for the water. Then shoot for the sky. And composite the two. But at the end of the day you still need a ND to create the movement in the water as far as I know.
Yes, stacking could be focus stacking, but also hdr stacking, or even simply NR stacking. I suppose if you can capture enough movement in the water with less than half a second or so, like you mention, and then stack, the result might look quite similar to a much longer exposure. I do not, unfortunately, live near the sea or some other interesting waterflow, otherwise I'd be out shooting as we speak.
-
Yes, stacking could be focus stacking, but also hdr stacking, or even simply NR stacking. I suppose if you can capture enough movement in the water with less than half a second or so, like you mention, and then stack, the result might look quite similar to a much longer exposure. I do not, unfortunately, live near the sea or some other interesting waterflow, otherwise I'd be out shooting as we speak.
Sounds like a lot of work for a similar effect, I've never tried. But sounds quite possible. Interesting idea. I often do something similar with light rays. Or for example a star shot I'm about to post where I've stacked star trails and still sky.
-
I shoot a lot of seascapes and agree that getting wet is something you have to live with if shooting wide angle. I lost a camera two years ago that ate a few waves for sunset, it eventually just died after the buttons started sticking, screen went dead etc.
The clip below is from some time ago, a quick session not far from my house. It was raining and the sea was on it's head and I thought it would be perfect to get the big swirl in the foreground, crap light regardless. But I got scared after the third swell swirled around my shorts and if I hadn't lifted the tripod out the water the camera would have had to do some creative backstroke. Attached is the pic also, wide angle doesn't tell the whole story of just how close you are to the water..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIObgGftwl4