A few seascapes from Wales from yesterday.

An Exception

An Exception

An Exception

Soldato
Joined
8 Aug 2010
Posts
6,453
Location
Oxfordshire
RW2_0490-Edit.jpg


RW2_0510-Edit.jpg


RW2_0516-Edit.jpg


RW2_0535-Edit.jpg


RW2_0562-Edit.jpg


RW2_0567-Edit.jpg


RW2_0582-Edit.jpg


RW2_0588-Edit.jpg


RW2_0589-Edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice but I'd rather see the actual sea over the arty filtered ones there, not to keen on the effect imo.
 
Well, with that amazing dynamic range who needs filters eh? :p

On a serious note, I think the perspective could be better, i can see what you are trying to do but on 2, 7, 8 & 9 the rocks are so big you are missing half the horizon, which is the important element of these kind of shots.

Some of them also lacking focal point, 4, 5 & 6 in particular.

And I don't think the time of day helped, i want to see the sun or more dramatic lighting.
 
I much prefer seeing the sea like that instead of the done to death wispy cloudy longer exposures. I've noticed a trend for people starting to get bored of it as well in magazines etc. I quite like the effect in 4 but mostly these longer exposure shots of the sea just all blur into one. It stops the landscape standing out to me anymore.
 
^^^
I think you hit the nail on the head. For me, I'v only just starting getting into landscapes and this was only my third attempt. I don't very often look at other peoples landscape work on the web etc. so I haven't got tired of the effect. In fact I'm simply exploring different effects and looks for the time being.
 
The last in post 7 is the only one that I find interesting. The time of day you picked just doesn't work for the types of photography you was trying to achieve judging from the use of the filters in the earlier shots. The sky is just too bland and needs to be filtered using a circular polariser, then a ND filter on top of that to get the nice slow shutter effects plus make the sky actually look nice. The only possible way of getting round that if you don't want to use either of those is to shoot between gold or blue hours.
 
An Exception said:
No need imo, and besides multiple exposures instead of ND would give better control.
Click to expand...

And if anything moves you can't do that. Swaying trees in wind, clouds, waves in the sea etc.

Thats why graduated ND filters exist as they allow you to enjoy both shadow and highlight detail at the same time in one single image instead of sacrificing one of them to gain the other. Multiple exposures is only useful of a grad ND in a few highly specific cases, such as a large tree going into the sky on your frame or ultra bright light sources clipping into areas of shadow. Neither of those apply to your photos, so grad ND is the obvious choice.
 
An Exception said:
ND filters don't work so well if the horizon isn't strait. Hence why D800's DR can be useful, as you can do it all in one exposure.
Click to expand...

What? We aren't talking about the D800, we are talking about your photos taken on your D700. They work absolutely fine and limit the amount of time you need to bring things back in post massively. You can also stack the filters in varying strengths to correct most of the errors you can think of anyway.
 
Plus even with 1 grad ND, you could align it as best you can across the sky and anything that rises out of it, then correct in post using a sampled polarise function anyway. Most surfing sports photos are done this way as a prime example. The sample you use it from the sky under the darkest part of the filter.
 
None of those really do it for me tbh. The penultimate one from the first set is the closest, but at that time of day there are no interesting colours. I'd have liked to have seen more of the sea or, preferably, more of the sky.

Agree with others that adding more clarity in the sky would add impact. They don't look washed out, but they do look a little flat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom