Let's see if I understand.........

[Jeni Williams]

Okay Guys, thanks so much for all the advice.
I'm trying to understand re comp and lighting - hope I'm getting a bit better. It seems rule of thirds is very important here and not just a guideline.
The assignment for the images so far was 1) Motion blur 2) hyperfocal length and 3) different exp where possible for HDR (difficult given lighting conditions). so that is why I concentrated on motion blur firstly.
In the original comp I tried to use the eddy to lead from the rt cnr flowing between the rocks to give me a line.
I have tried to crop this one 2/3 sky and 1/3 sea so added a bit of canvas on top.

I used sky selection and then levels, brightness and contrast with a mask to blend. (Just on 249 on brightest point):(
Then selected sea third, did levels, used white dropper and adjusted opacity. Blended. I have not sharpened.
I have also posted original image so you can see where I cropped and what colours I adjusted. No filter was used here. Oh and adjusted WB to shade in Camera Raw.
Canon EOD1DMk11
focal length: 28mm
Exp. time: 1/2 sec
f/16
ISO 100

[Jeni Williams]

Original image.

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Hi Jeni, I went the other way amd took a little off the sky. Left the wonderful rocks in. Don't think I would have cropped on the FG rock, but I am sure lots of people will have other ideas. Beautiful image.

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Jeni,
I'm with Jackie at not cropping off the bottom. This is why they are guidelines and not true rules.......they help in many cases but sometimes you just need to break them.....which IMO is the case here. I would also leave in the entire sky. I love what Jackie did with the PP'ing. This was very well composed by you and I would just play with a few of the tweaks that Jackie did. Very nicely done!

[Dave Mills]

I agree with Roman about the sky and Jackie's addition of room in front of the rocks. To me thats the formula!
Nice job...

[Jeni Williams]

Thanks so much Jackie and guys - appreciate the help.
This is slightly worked original image - levels, Brightness and contrast.

[Paul Marcellini]

Wow, thats a sky. Really nice image Jeni. I too like the comp of the original. I would just do something about that white fuzz spot just right of center on the horizon. I like your final processing as well.

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Jeni, Wonderful image with lots of learning going on. The foreground rock is an absolute necessity as it is touching the frame edge in the original post and for me, that is a no-no. I liked where you were going with the bolder sky but surely several versions will work here. Mine is above and I removed the white spot that Paul mentioned with the Patch Tool.

[Jeni Williams]

Thank you Art, appreciate your post. As I see it you have kept the original composition and enhanced all colours. presumably as Roman describes - separate levels for sky and sea and then Sat and Contrast.
The white haze you patched was spray but I understand why it distracts; there's also some on the left sea horizon which I take is acceptable. Did you sharpen? If so, hope you don't mind if I ask what settings you used.
I am reading up on Robert's guidelines re USM 20:50:0 and wonder if it can be applied to motion blur effectively.
Thanks for reply.

[Jeni Williams]

Now I really see how little I know!!!:o
Only way to get those reds like that is to go to color balance!

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Jeni,

re:

Thank you Art, appreciate your post.

YAW

As I see it you have kept the original composition and enhanced all colours.

I actually started with your repost from pane #8 so I worked only on the sky. I guess the foreground looks more dramatic because of the changes in the sky.

presumably as Roman describes - separate levels for sky and sea and then Sat and Contrast.

I selected the sky with the Magic Wand and then cleaned up the horizon line with the lasso tool and the polygonal lasso tool.

The white haze you patched was spray but I understand why it distracts;

I am not sure that you do. Let me know why you think it distracts.

there's also some on the left sea horizon which I take is acceptable.

That is correct.

Did you sharpen?

No. I assumed that you had sharpened your repost.

If so, hope you don't mind if I ask what settings you used. I am reading up on Robert's guidelines re USM 20:50:0 and wonder if it can be applied to motion blur effectively.

You are on the wrong track there. The contrast mask--I start with 15-65-0--is usually used only for selectively sharpening part of a full sized optimized image; I save mine as flattened TIFFs. (At times I try to use it to save images that are not really sharp.)

For my 800 JPEGs my generic settings (I use an action to create my BPN JPEGs) are Smart Sharpen: 140/.3/0.

Though it seems that you do few if any birds I can strongly recommend our Digital Basics File and even ABPII (the latter because the principles are the same in the various genres of photography).

[Jeni Williams]

Thanks for the answer Art, much appreciate it.

I am not sure that you do. Let me know why you think it distracts.
Ok, in the original composition I tried to follow the eddy line flowing from the right cnr carrying through the rocks and ending almost halfway to the left of the image; from the wave behind I wanted the eye to go up towards the bright cloud upper right. That line would go through the spray on the left.
( At least that was the idea behind the composition)
The white "fuzz" as Paul called it, draws my eye away from that line and breaks the flow???

I don't normally post outside of "Eager to learn"; I don't feel I have the necessary knowledge to break away from there yet. Al suggested I post here to get the togs to help me with the seascapes.:o

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hi Jeni,
Boy.... you've gotten quite a bit of info in the 2 posts here! Plenty of ways to get the color that way and contrast usually does quite a bit. I will admit that i like Jackie's sky best, as Artie's is a bit over the top....even for me (sorry Artie)! Either way the final choice is yours.
Just to add to the LCE discussion.......Artie's settings are pretty strong and if I am reading it correctly.....he uses these for the optimized tiff.....therefore being a bit more agressive isn't a problem and he is using it selectively. I find that for presentation here.....smaller numbers, like 20/40/0 are a good starting point but sometimes even that is too much. Remember, this is subjective and you can use the sliders to adjust it as much as you like. I have been as high as 40/60/0......depends on the image.

I also strongly agree with Artie's last statement that it doesn't matter about the various genres of photography.....the principals are the same so the small investment in the digital basics and ABPll is a very good one.

PS I'm glad you decided to step out and post here......I think everyone has gotten a ton of information for their own work!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for the answer Art, much appreciate it.

I am not sure that you do. Let me know why you think it distracts.
Ok, in the original composition I tried to follow the eddy line flowing from the right cnr carrying through the rocks and ending almost halfway to the left of the image; from the wave behind I wanted the eye to go up towards the bright cloud upper right. That line would go through the spray on the left.
( At least that was the idea behind the composition)
The white "fuzz" as Paul called it, draws my eye away from that line and breaks the flow???

I don't normally post outside of "Eager to learn"; I don't feel I have the necessary knowledge to break away from there yet. Al suggested I post here to get the togs to help me with the seascapes.:o

I love the overall COMP in the captured image. My question referred only to the spray, the "white fuzz." You sort of get it, but the big problem is that the spray was to close to the center... Had it been well offset to either side it might have been OK, but it still looked to me like a big Patch Tool smudge so I would probably have removed it IAC.

IMHO this image is a high quality image that should not be posted in ETL even though you are obviously eager to learn!

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Mr. Curry-check for the plug! I usually start with 15-65-0 and go up or down from there. I have gone as high as 130/80/0!

[Jeni Williams]

Thanks Roman, Unbelievable how much I learned here from the 3 pics I posted!!! I print out all the information and then go back to the original raw and work it over and over again!!:) I have done so few land\seascapes and up to now tried the setting you once told me for a "silhouette sunrise" 20 29 0.
I do get Art's Bulletins and have Aptats as well as John Shaw's CS3 for beginners. I have a couple of lever arch files full of the info I print from them. That and thanks to Jackie, has taught me what I know about CS3.
Must admit, my first love is for wildlife and avian, but with limited access to nature reserves or hides, I decided to do this course and with such an enthusiastic instructor this past weekend, it really rubbed off on those of us on the workshop. Can't wait to work through the notes and do more seascapes!:D

[Jeni Williams]

Really appreciate that Art - thank you.:D