Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: stamper on February 24, 2010, 06:11:52 am
-
I have recently taken to doing long exposures. This is one of the shortest. 2.5 seconds. f/11. Two 4 stop ND filters.
-
Hi Stamper,
After reading one of your post "how good are you", I feel careful in giving my feelings,
I do not yet have a photo website, but I'll try to be as constructive as I can.
I think that there was an interesting intention to focus on the stone: the real white is located on the ice top of the stone.
I find this "isolation" interesting while the rest of the image is blue dominant, and the blue tone is cold so perfectly
transmiting the feeling of cold.
I also find that the only color of the leaves also interesting, it is life in this ice kingdom.
At the same time something does not ending to work totally and I'm not sure of what it is.
It will be interesting to read others viewpoint.
Maybe the blue is too pushed. There is something "swich off", it lacks strength.
Looking at this image, I would try to push the whites where the ice is out of the water: arround the stone
but specially in the leaves, while keeping the rest of the image as it is.
I think it will create more contrast and a separation in planes.
Interested to see what others think.
Regards,
Fred.
-
I really like this shot and think that overall its a really good shot. Great work. I do see what fredjeang is saying with regards to the something is not quite right and I don't know that I think it's the color push but rather then "almost" smooth water along with the perfectly still leaves in the upper right. But I actually think this adds to the picture, it keeps you looking at it and that to me is a great photo.
Congrats, great shot.
Adam
-
I am new to the long exposure techniques. I find that the long exposures - this one isn't too long - accentuate the colour blue. I have seen it in other images on the site. I could have desaturated it but posters with more experience of long exposures might have wondered about it? At the end of the day it is a matter of taste? Thanks for the feedback. Regarding pushing the whites I didn't want to over expose them. I have seen images where they were pure white and imo not attractive. However I will keep this all in mind and have another look at similar images on the site and see what the feedback was.
-
I am new to the long exposure techniques. I find that the long exposures - this one isn't too long - accentuate the colour blue. I have seen it in other images on the site. I could have desaturated it but posters with more experience of long exposures might have wondered about it? At the end of the day it is a matter of taste? Thanks for the feedback. Regarding pushing the whites I didn't want to over expose them. I have seen images where they were pure white and imo not attractive. However I will keep this all in mind and have another look at similar images on the site and see what the feedback was.
I've come back to this image several times, since on the whole I like it a lot. But I do find the blue to be a bit too pronounced. For me, it goes beyond suggesting cold and just says "blue!" I'd like to see a couple of variants with the saturation turned down just a little, or perhaps with the color balance shifted a bit. At the moment it feels to me as if it is "almost there."
Eric
-
I've come back to this image several times, since on the whole I like it a lot. But I do find the blue to be a bit too pronounced. For me, it goes beyond suggesting cold and just says "blue!" I'd like to see a couple of variants with the saturation turned down just a little, or perhaps with the color balance shifted a bit. At the moment it feels to me as if it is "almost there."
Eric
I agree with Eric, saw it several times as well, I think just a little less of blue or Eric's suggestion about WB. This is a great picture that just need a little more adjustment.
Fred.
-
I have recently taken to doing long exposures. This is one of the shortest. 2.5 seconds. f/11. Two 4 stop ND filters.
Really nice. The ice makes the photo and sets it apart from a nice but rather banal photo of cottony water. You got the ice to look like ice, too, which is not always easy.
-
A less saturated look. IMO it does look better? Thanks for the feedback.
-
Hi,
Well, seeing the alternative one, I must say that I prefer the original one.
This one looks more natural, but strangely now the blue of the first one does not disturb me comparing the 2 pictures side by side.
In fact, until we can see the pictures in different versions...
Maybe the original picture was perfect as it was but it is good to have tried another version.
Sometimes we just need to play a little bit to come back to the first idea with no doubt.
I'll keep the first one just as it is.
Fred.
-
I think I would try with the saturation about midway between the original and the new version, and then add a tiny bit of local contrast enhancement or else a tiny adjustment curve to brighten the water just a tiny bit, without forcing the whites too far.
It's worth playing with some more.
Eric
-
One thing about long exposures of moving water is that some parts, including surrounding areas, like rocks, can end up looking out of focus rather than the intended soft and ethereal look (note the left bottom rock looks soft). So you have to watch for that and maybe take one shot with a faster shutter speed to compare.
I don't worry about blue or green or any other tinges, because if they are too pronounced, they are easy to fix. Usually set somewhere between true neutral white and the colour tinge.
Water blur is often overdone to the point of cliche. Having said that, like any good sunset, I still love them, if the result is a great image. But you should consider a shutter speed somewhere between blur and freeze and compare. Total blur is not always desirable and can render water milky and unattractive and often does. Believe me, I know, and only show you the good ones! Mind you, slow shutter speeds are sometimes unavoidable. The best blurs come at a right angle to the flow of water, such as rapids, rather than in front or behind the flow; Note that the speed of flow and amount of white in the flow (or foam) of the water can make or break an image, so do experiment. Large areas of white are hard to expose for and skew light meters' readings. And when doing PP with a lot of white, say to try to increase contrast, or correct, the large amounts of white start to appear overexposed.
My cascades series were done, in part, as experimental in-camera, multiple exposures. Hope this helps.
By the way, I would have preferred the image without the cluster of green foliage and ice- a simpler look. Try a little unsharp mask, it gives a better more defined look to the water movement. Sparingly of course.
JMR
-
One thing about long exposures of moving water is that some parts, including surrounding areas, like rocks, can end up looking out of focus rather than the intended soft and ethereal look (note the left bottom rock looks soft). So you have to watch for that and maybe take one shot with a faster shutter speed to compare.
I don't worry about blue or green or any other tinges, because if they are too pronounced, they are easy to fix. Usually set somewhere between true neutral white and the colour tinge.
Water blur is often overdone to the point of cliche. Having said that, like any good sunset, I still love them, if the result is a great image. But you should consider a shutter speed somewhere between blur and freeze and compare. Total blur is not always desirable and can render water milky and unattractive and often does. Believe me, I know, and only show you the good ones! Mind you, slow shutter speeds are sometimes unavoidable. The best blurs come at a right angle to the flow of water, such as rapids, rather than in front or behind the flow; Note that the speed of flow and amount of white in the flow (or foam) of the water can make or break an image, so do experiment. Large areas of white are hard to expose for and skew light meters' readings. And when doing PP with a lot of white, say to try to increase contrast, or correct, the large amounts of white start to appear overexposed.
My cascades series were done, in part, as experimental in-camera, multiple exposures. Hope this helps.
By the way, I would have preferred the image without the cluster of green foliage and ice- a simpler look. Try a little unsharp mask, it gives a better more defined look to the water movement. Sparingly of course.
JMR
A good reply. I have done this sort of photography only for the last two or three weeks and I am still learning and experimenting. The soft rock was probably lack of depth of field. I was in the river for over two hours and probably took about 100 images at all sorts of shutter speeds so there are a lot still to to study. Your point about areas of white and exposure are uppermost in my mind. Regarding sharpening what I used to "sharpen" the water was the structure feature in Viveza 2 to add definition to the water but as you stated it must not be overdone. Do you have a link to your cascade series?
-
A good reply. I have done this sort of photography only for the last two or three weeks and I am still learning and experimenting. The soft rock was probably lack of depth of field. I was in the river for over two hours and probably took about 100 images at all sorts of shutter speeds so there are a lot still to to study. Your point about areas of white and exposure are uppermost in my mind. Regarding sharpening what I used to "sharpen" the water was the structure feature in Viveza 2 to add definition to the water but as you stated it must not be overdone. Do you have a link to your cascade series?
The link is this site at http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=41885 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41885). My website, which contains some rapids shots, is at http://johnroias.smugmug.com/Landscapes (http://johnroias.smugmug.com/Landscapes)
Just keep experimenting and remember it is not enough to shoot moving water just to create blur or softness; An image must still have good photographic design and effective expression, no matter the technique or subject matter.
JMR
-
John thanks. I need to expand my photography out of a rut and I am finding this to be interesting. I rarely used my tripod but I have now purchased a new and better one with some ND filters and a cable release. I will look closely at your links.