Hello!

submitting this photo for your insightful and valuable C & C. i will be glad to read your thoughts and impressions, so don't hesitate to let rip those comments :) let this be a nice discussion on the art of wilderness photography as well as the techniques and issues that concern it.



the rushing sea

http://jaydigital.negimaki.com/d/57-1/the+rushing+sea.jpg

EOS 30D + EF-s 10-22mm @ 14mm + Hoya CPL + Hoya ND8 + Cokin 2-stop Graduated Neutral Density Filter

1.3 seconds @ f/5.6 iso 200. 2 RAW conversions from Lightroom blended in CS3.

photographed in Matawe, Dingalan, Aurora. November 2007.

this is a beautiful image. however, I would have loved to see more of the sea..especailly where the waves break. i find it bitin ( i want more) also the rock or trunk is a bit too low. For some reason, I think a horizontal image may work better. or backing up a bit more to give it more of the sea. I love the blueness of the image

I find the composition too tight horizontally. I would love to have more space on the left portion and a little bit more on the right so your foreground (i believe its not PFE :D) is not cropped. I also find the gradation from warm to cool WB (resulting from 2 raw conversion?) too abrupt(?-can't think of the right term). The sunset (yellow) color should have at least a color cast on the water near the mountain. (read: Just my taste though :D).

I find the composition too tight horizontally. I would love to have more space on the left portion and a little bit more on the right so your foreground (i believe its not PFE :D) is not cropped. I also find the gradation from warm to cool WB (resulting from 2 raw conversion?) too abrupt(?-can't think of the right term). The sunset (yellow) color should have at least a color cast on the water near the mountain. (read: Just my taste though :D).


yes, i hear you mitz. i think it's too tight din. was constrained to go only as wide as 14mm because the stacked filters cause an ugly vignette at 10mm.

the sunset / warm cast was the reason i had to use 2 WB conversions. if i used a neutral white balance, those yellow hues won't even show. It was predominantly dark and utterly bluish-gray. in reality, the last remaining light that day really lit up the clouds with a fiery intensity...almost like alpenglow...but i struggled to capture it. i was practically panicking that time, as this light was rapidly disappearing. i wanted to remove the CPL and the ND8 but i figured that it will just be precious seconds lost. i compromised by using a wider aperture and bumping the iso one stop up.

the last remaining bits of direct sunlight doesn't even reach the mountains nor the sea, as it is already blocked by the high peaks of the sierra madre to the west.

hmmm.....thanks mitz. perhaps a wider gradient blend would have worked, you think?

this is a beautiful image. however, I would have loved to see more of the sea..especailly where the waves break. i find it bitin ( i want more) also the rock or trunk is a bit too low. For some reason, I think a horizontal image may work better. or backing up a bit more to give it more of the sea. I love the blueness of the image

thanks pilar! a few minutes before i shot this, i already took a couple of frames in horizontal and vertical orientations. but it was at this critical point - where the light on the clouds just burst with splendid yellows - that everything came together. i just had to work faster so as not to miss the moment.

i knew i should have backed up even just two steps hahaha. more patience and contemplation for me i guess.

thank you, again :)

@ Mitz....this was taken pala at 5:57 pm....just a few minutes before sunset talaga. and er, yes, its a PFE.....not that convenient to haul around nga lang haha

what's a PFE?

what's a PFE?

PORTABLE FOREGROUND ELEMENT. :D

something a photographer finds lying in the periphery and places (manually) in a scene to serve as a foreground for a wide shot. could be a rock, branch, or in the case of really inventive folks, a banca. :D

PFE could be re-used if needed. could also be shared by other photographers working the same scene. hahaha.

also known as "the contrived element."

Hahahahah! That's precious!
At first I thought it meant Permanent Fatal Error, but the context was all wrong.

sir can you explain much further why you used a 2 raw file?based on my understanding, you said that just to capture the yellow luminance from the sky and not sacrificing the nick of time where all cannot be seen.. sir im gladly looking forward to your answer :) sorry for asking i just need to learn from the expert. :D

I asked my son (who's not into photography) to comment on your picture, Jay. And the first thing he noticed were the yellow clouds. He said it doesn't look right. I said it was because the sun was setting that's why. He said, "...shouldn't it be a bit orange or a bit darker in hue." He said, "it still looked nice but it looks more like a painting that man made not what God made." (Translation: Hmmm..... )

i'd prefer a wider crop and i find the post processing too cheesy.

It would be better to have it shot horizontally (i guess) or stepping back a little. As for the postprocessing, i just dont like the unreal color combination.

I asked my son (who's not into photography) to comment on your picture, Jay. And the first thing he noticed were the yellow clouds. He said it doesn't look right. I said it was because the sun was setting that's why. He said, "...shouldn't it be a bit orange or a bit darker in hue." He said, "it still looked nice but it looks more like a painting that man made not what God made." (Translation: Hmmm..... )

hi aly,

though the sun is setting, those clouds were still hit by direct beams of sunlight, warm and strong. given the philippine's position near the equator and the relative low altitude of the clouds, it can't be expected to go crimson/orange, not while it is still directly lit by the sun. i was actually waiting for some kind of "alpenglow" to show up....but, alas, nothing of that sort happened.

you will notice that the higher altitude clouds on the upper part of the frame are starting to turn orange.

please tell adrian, my many thanks :)

sir can you explain much further why you used a 2 raw file?based on my understanding, you said that just to capture the yellow luminance from the sky and not sacrificing the nick of time where all cannot be seen.. sir im gladly looking forward to your answer :) sorry for asking i just need to learn from the expert. :D

i just used 1 RAW file. just extracted it twice so i can use separate white balance settings for the sky and the sea. if i followed the default WB from lightroom, the sky and clouds would just be a wash of dull blues and grays.

while the finished scene is not a 100% documentation of the scene (god forbid if any artist would want that), it is still closer to what we saw that dusk from matawe. far closer that the initial interpretation of the RAW capture by lightroom.

i hope i got your question right RJ :)

i'd prefer a wider crop and i find the post processing too cheesy.

It would be better to have it shot horizontally (i guess) or stepping back a little. As for the postprocessing, i just dont like the unreal color combination.

thanks. yes i've noted that. i did shoot in "landscape" orientation. i prefer the portrait format and the tighter crop though....more focused on the essential elements of the scene.

"cheesy." if you actually explained and invested more in your rare words, we could have a better discussion.

Aly,

as a footnote to the "painterly" comment...

Albert Bierstadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt)

hi aly,

though the sun is setting, those clouds were still hit by direct beams of sunlight, warm and strong. given the philippine's position near the equator and the relative low altitude of the clouds, it can't be expected to go crimson/orange, not while it is still directly lit by the sun. i was actually waiting for some kind of "alpenglow" to show up....but, alas, nothing of that sort happened.

you will notice that the higher altitude clouds on the upper part of the frame are starting to turn orange.

please tell adrian, my many thanks :)

I'll tell Adrian. :Grin:

And thanks for the Albert Bierstadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt) Link!! :)

I'll tell Adrian. :Grin:

And thanks for the Albert Bierstadt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bierstadt) Link!! :)


hehe. the photo is as "painterly" as my current taste and tolerance can accomodate.

Galen Rowell, in the years prior to his untimely death, did favor this Bierstadt-ish renditions, pushing velvia to its most saturated state.

the painterly look can also be attributed to the near absence of true blacks or true whites (no clipping the end points of the histogram in levels)......there's no unnecessary contrast in these kinds of images. whatever clipping i got was because of the Adobe RGB to sRGB profile conversion.

Don't you have another landscape shot?

Don't you have another landscape shot?

i'll try to post the straight jpeg conversion of this tomorrow. its the most uninteresting photo ever :D

Hi Jay, this is very nice seascape, but much better if you use f/8-f/11 instead to make your foreground more sharper, perhaps you can change your ND8 into ND4 or more lighter density to maintain your 1.3 sec. speed. but very nice composition indeed

jay,

some thoughts about your image...

> i find the transition of colors of the sky and the water too abrupt (am looking for reflections or shadows). do you mind if i ask how much PP did you do to this photo of yours?
> (personal preference) i tend to go for darker images....the image lacks the play of shadows.... but i do know there are a lot of people who are love the silky smooth and tone of your photos :)
> to my taste, ive seen you have far better photos than this...... composition wise and PP.

just my thoughts man.

cheers!

i just used 1 RAW file. just extracted it twice so i can use separate white balance settings for the sky and the sea. if i followed the default WB from lightroom, the sky and clouds would just be a wash of dull blues and grays.

while the finished scene is not a 100% documentation of the scene (god forbid if any artist would want that), it is still closer to what we saw that dusk from matawe. far closer that the initial interpretation of the RAW capture by lightroom.

i hope i got your question right RJ :)

Aok, Thanks sir! :)

to everyone :)

i am grateful and honored that you took the time to look and critique the photo. giving a meaningful,well-thought out and written comment is not the easiest of things to do. so thank you again for your thoughts.

@erwin mallari

thank you sir. while i do normally work at f/11 to f/16 on the UWA, the scene called for a faster aperture as light levels were already very low. note that i had to use iso 200. as i mentioned previously, there was no time to take off the filters because moment was against me. removing delicate filters and carefully stashing them in their cases is just too time consuming for me then :D

at f/.6 and 14mm (22mm equiv.), i think i still have great depth-of-field since this was focused near the hyperfocal point. the branch looks out of focus because it was being swept by the waves! and i tell you, those waves are a real force of nature. it was also difficult to use longer exposures because the tripod legs kept sinking in the sand.

thank you for your comment sir, i appreciate it :-)


@ levi

thank you bro!

yes, i think it was really abrupt. perhaps pp is too heavy-handed for many folks.

the lack of shadows was really intended. i kept away from putting in true blacks as i expounded on a previous post in this thread.

composition-wise and pp....yeah, i believe you're right :) thank you for taking time out to C&C the image.

here is the RAW interpretation of Canon's DPP. Standard picture style. normal saturation. note the "bleakness" of the colors even at a very "warm" WB setting. it was far boring from what we actually saw that time from matawe's shores.


http://jaydigital.negimaki.com/d/63-1/Raw.jpg

i *think* i like the above photo rather than the one posted in the first page.. i admit, i have biases, i rarely liked over-pp'ed landscapes.. again, it's a matter of preferences.

i *think* i like the above photo rather than the one posted in the first page.. i admit, i have biases, i rarely liked over-pp'ed landscapes.. again, it's a matter of preferences.

Cez, My son tends to agree with your preference! Adrian liked the cool blue unretouched version better. :)

i *think* i like the above photo rather than the one posted in the first page.. i admit, i have biases, i rarely liked over-pp'ed landscapes.. again, it's a matter of preferences.

I like this one too than the pped version. The first one looks unnatural to me, maybe because of the yellow clouds. As what Sir Aly's son said, it's more like a painting to me.

i will take the blue one too... based on my monitor, i would make it a bit darker

can you show us the horizontal version??

The unPP image may look good at first glance but i don't think that's the sky Jay saw. The WB is off with my "landscape eye". Very far from velvia :D.

The reason we PP our image is to make it more "realistic" with what we saw or in the case of landscape photographers to make it more like Velvia (which i think is also not natural.. gulo no :D).
The only thins thats unnatural to me in the first (PPed) image is the abrupt transition of yellow to blue (think SR gold-n-blue pola). The 2nd image (unPPed) is not natural to me :D.

Cez, Aly, Pilar and Armand:

Thank you for chiming in with your thoughts, especially in putting forth your preference between the two "versions." your views are welcomed.


a number of friends have wondered why i have chosen to post this particular photo in C & C. they too, tended to agree with your opinions. more importantly, i think posting the photo made me notice a glaring flaw in my post-processing of the image - as keenly observed by mitz and levi. thank you for that!

here are two more photos of the scene, both taken after the original post.

the rushing sea II
http://jaydigital.negimaki.com/d/67-1/_MG_0510+The+Rushing+Sea+II.jpg
1.6 seconds @ f/7.1 iso 200 14mm. 5:59 pm. CPL + ND8


the rushing sea III
http://jaydigital.negimaki.com/d/85-2/_MG_0513+The+Rushing+Sea+III_002.jpg
1.6 seconds @ f/4.5 iso 200 13mm. 6:01 pm


in compositional terms, i think these latter 2 shots fare much better than the OP. the foreground element is presented in its entirety and fit the frame much better. the rushing sea and the wave swept effect is still there. i think the "lack of space" echoed by some C&Cers is now properly addressed.

however, for me at least, the most critical element is already missing. sunlight has quickly vanished and its final gasp that day has diminished into a whimper of rays palely illuminating the high clouds in "II." by the minute "III" was taken, it was completely gone. in a span of less than 5 minutes, the quality of light has changed drastically. of course, there's photoshop and post-processing to tell a different story.....however, even if i processed "II" with a white balance of 50000 Kelvin, it still wouldn't approach the fiery intensity of the sunlit clouds in the OP.

while many people (naturally) favor to have landscapes subtly post-processed, i decided early on to undertake a riskier approach and present landscapes in a more dynamic, highly-personalized form. while presenting landscape scenes as close as possible to how they are found is doable, i shudder at the thought of becoming a rote presenter of these images, of photographing and showing scenic views verbatim, or "as is." that approach fails to excite me.

while digital sensors still struggle to record what our eyes see with 100% veracity, much more capture the full splendor of nature with complete truthfullness, no landscape photographer - in my readings - has ever endeavored to do so. ansel adams has tweaked his negatives to reflect his own vision of the american west. same goes for weston. galen rowell has his custom build GNDs. jack dykinga, art wolfe, ken duncan, joe cornish, charlie waite, etc. - almost every big name landscaper who has used film - have preferred fuji velvia as their medium of choice, a film so saturated it effectively spawned a new love for super colorful - though not necessarily honest - interpretations of our earth. this led me to a realization: an informed landscape photographer pursues a unique vision of what he sees in the land. his presentation of this vision is his art. it doesn't necessarily strive to be completely honest to the original scene.

now, i have nothing against those who love their landscapes otherwise. i love them just as much. as cez said, "it's a matter of preferences."

while "II" and "III" seem to be the most natural and most honest representations of what lloyd and i witnessed in matawe, they, IMO, are most uninspired in comparison to the original photo i posted for C&C. that a number of DPPers have offered a different view than mine is enough reason for me to smile.

i have taken not the safe road.


like i said in my first post, i had wished that this landscape C&C would be a fruitful discussion / exchange of ideas. i thank the lot who have given their views. i am grateful for your sincerity. i'm even happier that C&C forum has finally taken off, thanks to those who have audaciously forged-on to have their heads, er, photos on the chopping block :D salut!