Please advise

[Jeni Williams]

Please could you tell me which lighting is the best for this image - I am experimenting with overlay. My husband doesn't like the darker one and a friend who helped me doesn't like the lighter one.:confused:

[Jeni Williams]

lighter one

[Robert Amoruso]

Jeni,

I would go with the lighter one as you have more detail in the rocks and clouds but still retain the brooding dark look of the storm. Good composition too. I would suggest having given the rock on the right a bit more room so it was not on the edge of the frame.

[Dave Mills]

Hi Jeni, My opinion of which I like the besr differs from Roberts. I like the first one better. Reasons being the colors are richer, more contrast, rocks still show sufficient detail and has overall more impact. I agree with Robert on the placement of the rock. Very nicely handled image!!

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Ditto the comments by Dave, very nice shot Jeni.

[Kaushik Balakumar]

Jeni, this is a nice image. Especially liked the gushing waves. Nice shutter speed.
I liked the sky in the lighter version. Its looks lot more natural (whereas in the darker version, the colours tend to look funny - especially the blues which look like ink). To me ideal image would be a combination of the sky from lighter version & the remaining from the darker version.
But if you were to tell me that I have to choose one from the presented two, then I would pick the lighter version.
My 2 cents... :)

[Juan Carlos Vindas]

I will stay with the darker version. It's true that those blues look funny but, they add character to the image.

May be is because I like richer colors :)

[Robert Amoruso]

I finally had a chance to see this one at home on a much better monitor and better interior illumination. I like the first better but would bring up the detail in the front of the large rock in the FG.

[Jeni Williams]

Thank you all so much. Robert, will try what you suggest - thank you.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Jeni,
Please rmember to post the tech specs as it helps us with the critiques and others the opportunity to learn from your image.
I did prefer the darker version but felt the right half of the sky was a bit dark......so I brought only about 1/2 the sky up with a levels layer adjustment. I also added a bit of brightness and contrast to the entire sky. Finally I lightened the rocks.....just a touch. Let me know your thoughts. BTW.....I like this one compositionally much better than the previous post.

[Jeni Williams]

Robert, what would you use to bring up the detail? contrast?

Thanks Roman. Really appreciate all the help I can get
Roman, really like what you have done. Hope you don't mind me asking, how did you only select the rocks? And then did you use levels for lightening?

I apologize for not posting exif earlier, got carried away with a new field of photography that I don't normally dabble in!!

Canon 1D Mk11
focal length: 24mm
f/16
exp. time: 1/4sec
ISO 100
Graduated filter ( I don't know which one - it was the instructors.:o)

[Mark Fuge]

Hi Jeni,

I like the image and would agree with the above comments.

I would also recommend you consider a crop to enhance the sky effect. I've attached an example using the rule of 1/3rds. In this image you really want the sky to be a major subject, therefore in my view it should be at least 1/3rd the image. I did not do any adjustments. I just added the crop and expand areas for your information.

Additionally, I have shown an expansion of the right border area, as suggested about, which I would concur with to move the rock away from the border.

I have cropped out the lower left rock, as it does not appear to add to the image, in my view. Removing it also brings the vertical frame to be 1/3 sky, roughly 1/3 sea and 1/3 foreground. I would personally stick with that type of crop for this image.

<O:p
Additionally, for future, you may want to experiment with more than 1/3 sky for scenes like this, were the weather is the subject rather than the shoreline. Making it 2/3rds would truely heighten the effect of the storm. Using a vertical format may also allow you to put more "weather" sky into the frame.

<O:pThe above are just suggestions, but worth a try to see how you like it.

It's your image, so make it what match your vision!;)


<O:p

[Roman Kurywczak]

[quote=Jeni Williams;260812]Robert, what would you use to bring up the detail? contrast?

Thanks Roman. Really appreciate all the help I can get
Roman, really like what you have done. Hope you don't mind me asking, how did you only select the rocks? And then did you use levels for lightening?

I apologize for not posting exif earlier, got carried away with a new field of photography that I don't normally dabble in!!

Hi Jeni,
Yes, I used a levels adjustment layer on 1/2 the sky and then the lower rock. I used the lasso tool to select.....pretty sloppy.......Immediately after doing the levels adjustment, I had to blur the mask on each......this removes the edge (use the slider until the edge just disappears).
You may want to try a LCE adjustment......Robert has it in the tutorial sticky for contrast and tonal range tweaks.....but let's see what he chimes in.
Hope this helps.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Forgot to mention.....I also explored Marks crop idea.....and didn't like it....preferred the original version. Don't fret Mark.....even I thought it would strengthen originally.

[Mark Fuge]

Forgot to mention.....I also explored Marks crop idea.....and didn't like it....preferred the original version. Don't fret Mark.....even I thought it would strengthen originally.


No problem Roman, it is just one suggestion for Jeni, as to me the weather could be considered the subject. If the sea is the subject, the sky can be downplayed as in the original.

My first issue when looking at it was the small rock in the lower left, to me it made my eye jump from it to the larger rock next to it. I liked the larger rock, but saw no purpose for the smaller one in the composition. When I cropped that out, I got the 1/3 compostion shown. Then it was just a matter of triming it to add the suggested right expansion and balancing.

I see a strong vertical possible from this point, that is why I also suggested that. While the wave action is awesome, the interaction of the storm clouds and the waves is very interesting to me. The beach is personally of lessor interest and I would therefore have explored the waves and the sky separately from this image.

[Jeni Williams]

Roman and Mark , thanks for the ideas.
I also tried some crops similar to Mark's ideas; my problem is that personally I love the water movement coming in on the bottom left.:o
After straightening the horizon , I left the original amount of sky just filled in the gaps by cloning, left the small rock on right away from edge and cropped out the rock bottom left corner but left the moving water I like. Now the q is - where would you crop the sky?

I've found out a number of things that I use for wildlife\avian are not really suitable with land\seascape and will also have to use a different tripod head in order to be able to swing to vertical.
The ND graduated filter I used from our instructor was a ND 2 stop ( sorry it's not 3 Roman!)
Am thinking of adding a Sigma lens for this type of work - which one would you guys recommend?

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jeni,
The 2 stop is great so don't worry about that.....I just find I sometimes nees just a bit more. While I generally don't like cut rocks at the edges of the frame...I still like the LHC rock as it does lead the eye with the flow into the sandy part....just as you intended......I did try a few tweaks on the whiter parts of your last re-post sky(same levels or curves layers)......while it improved it.....the bright area became too dominant and took away from the rock and the lower portion.....so IMO you did well with the original crop. My re-post is as much as I would even consider cropping off the bottom and am OK with leaving it in entirely. Lot's of great ideas and this was nice to bounce them around.
PS I would add the bit of space on the right.

[Mark Fuge]

First I would suggest you leave the sky. That was my second option. The image is different than the one that I commented on, which you posted above. Given what you have and what you did, I think it is a good image, as you have created a crop that accented both the weather (sky) and the sea (waves) very nicely.

I like the rule of thirds for landscape work as a starting point. But when you have a dominant subject, or two as in this case, in the image. Try to balance them, without splitting the frame in half (which in my view is a definate no/no in most landscape images). I think you did that very well in this revised image.

Again, our suggestions are just that. You took from Roman and me and others here and made an image that works for you. If you choose to remove sky, so be it. But it will change the nature of your image and the subjects will be less defined, in my view.

When it comes to lenses, wildlife and landscape are normally on the other end of the scale. ;) But the good news is that normally so is the price! ;) As always your pocket book rules, in the selection of photo equipment. But given a reasonable budget, you can get a good lens for less than for wildlife.

As for the lens, you did not list what you have so it is hard to say what you need. But as you appear to indicate you have wildlife lenses now. I do not know the Sigma line that well, but for landscapes a wide angle is desired. I would personally go with a wide to normal or short tele zoom lens. That will allow you to get images like this and beyond on the short end as well as in camera cropping of more distant subjects. Go for quality rather than speed of the lens, as you should use a tripod for landscapes and therefore shutter speed is not as critical as aperature. I would choose a 17 (+/-) to 85 thru 135mm zoom range. Looking for the sharpest lens affordable. I recommend the zoom. as the first lens over a prime so you can see what you like and maybe buy a supplemental lense later when you know if you really like the effect of the image area it offers. Zooms today are better quality, if you buy quality and the price is reasonable for the image options they provide.

My wide angle lenses, as wildlife is my prime area, are a Canon 35-135mm and a Canon 35-350mm L lens. I would prefer a wider lens however, if I shot a lot of landscape images.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Jeni,
Mark must have been typing when i was working on putting the sky back.....just a slight crop off it.....darkened the brightest area using lasso tool and B/C adjustment layer......I will say that the sky is growing on me.
Since you are using the Mark 2 with the 1.3 factor.....I would go with the newest version of the 16-35.......supposed to be tack sharp. IF you have a 1.6 factor body...the Sigma 10-20 less $$$ and nothing but positive feedback from it.

[Jeni Williams]

Thanks so much Mark and Roman - have learnt a lot!
I have a 24 - 105mm f/4 lens that I used for the workshop, but admit to wishing I had a wider angle at times.
Am looking into getting a ND first though.
Other than that I have 70 - 200mm L, and 300mm f/4 L that I use with extenders.

Would love to get a 100mm macro and of course, dream of my dreams, 500mmf/4:o:D