Like this shot, this one is a long exposure daylight shot taken with a B+W ND 113 neutral density filter. In this instance it was a four minute exposure and it's a shot of the same section of groyne as yesterday's shot (though this one is flipped horizontally). And other than that it's pretty much a straight shot: the rather odd colour balance was a result of the camera attempting to work out the white balance through a largely opaque filter and the slightly diffuse effect is because it was raining, albeit quite lightly.
Anyway, and as always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, particularly in terms of how you think this one compares to yesterday's.
And again, as with yesterday's, I think this one looks better with the black theme.
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter cropped?
1.50pm on 18/5/06
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
17mm (27mm equiv.)
f/11.0
4m 0s
manual
n/a
evaluative
100
no
RAW
DxO Optics Pro
minor
by the way this way better than yesterday in my opinion of course, but i like this style of yours most. nice to see it again.
comment byAndrew at 05:59 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
I love what the long exposure does to the water. Makes it look like you're standing at the edge of a cliff, and the clouds just rise to the top of it. I've been meaning to get a ND filter so I can do similar shots. Do they tend to be pricey? I know that the B+W C-POL filter I got second hand from my uncle was quite pricey, as far as filters go anyways.
Definitely prefer today's to yesterday's shot. I think the rather strange colour balance adds to it. It looks like it was taken during the Normandy landings in WW2, one of my faves for a while!
Andrew: this one was expensive, not least because I had to import it from the US, but you could get a couple of reasonably priced ones and stack them.
comment byJoseph at 06:04 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
this ones a winner in my eyes, Fantastic shot. The mutilated metal looks like its seen everything.
comment byAndrew at 06:09 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
So tell me Dave, does the urge to get more photography toys ever die down? I've had camera's my whole life, mainly my dad's when I was younger. Recently I decided I really have to get into photography more because I love photographs. The past year has been pricey for me as I buy accessories for my camera all the time. :P
Andrew: no, not in my experience. I could quite happily spend at least £15,000 pounds on new kit with little or no thought at all: a 1Ds mkII, 24-70 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8, a new computer, a new monitor, a set of graduated Lee filters, a few more lenses, a digital rangefinder, some studio lighting, an A2 printer, another 580EX speedlite, and so on ... none of which I can currently afford :-)
comment byAndrew at 06:21 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
Dave: That's what I was afraid of. :-P Oh well, seems most hobbies eventually go that way. At least with digital photography it doesn't cost anything to go out for a day and rattle off a few hundred pictures.
the horizon is so straight u can walk on, beautiful colors, great detail, i wish someday to have enough money to buy what i need to be able to make from my hobby something more, like u did...
I'm not sure about the colouring to this one (seems a little bit too mucky)
I think it looks better with the dark theme tho... makes it a little bit brighter
comment by Bob at 07:13 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
I like the results of the experiments you've done so far with the ND 113. This image is beautifully dreamlike and the greenish-yellow toning helps reinforce that quality.
A suggestion for further experimentation with that filter might be to capture a scene using a bit of under-exposure, and then try coaxing out the detail using the HDR plugin. Might get some interesting or unexpected results.
I like very much the tone and the blurry of the water. The composition is perfect for me, It leads your eye from the rests of metal to the blurry water. Good work!
David,
I love the long day exposures, though in this case, I like this better than yesterdays a little better... Slightly calmer and I love the smoothness of the moving waves.
I went to buy an nd 113 filter the other week, but got the 120 instead. comment byMark [londonrubbish] at 08:38 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
Firstly, they are very different shots, so I think a straight comparison is slightly unfair. However, I prefer yesterday's; the moody sky, the overall contrast, the movement in the sea, which all give it a soul. This image is good, but it just doesn't have impact, it's calmer and more serene. Also, I think the sea and sky look generated in comparison to the foreground giving too much of a contrast. My eyes keep getting dragged back to those pebbles at the very bottom. Both great images though and now I want a B + W ND filter. Not sure how that would work in London though.
comment bySysagent at 09:25 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
Just wierd isnt it...
I like it don't get me wrong but it all just looks so wierd :)
I like the detail on the pebbles and groyne mostly in the shot.
Superb, and whilst different from yesterdays I think I like this version as it provides a clear separation of foreground to background.
I'm not a big fan of slow shutter speeds when applied to water myself, but in this shot it works brilliantly because of the mood created which for me is vital.
Funnily enough though I love slow shutter speeds when applied to humans.
Great work Dave.
comment bysteefje at 11:30 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
Hi, haven't been folowing your blog for some reason .. i should have ..
Great mood, awesome colors, very strange but cool horizon.
What a wonderful example of photographic interpretation.
To have these two so very different images of the same scene made only a few moments apart in time and yet using time itself to change the mood and representation - impressive. Had they been from the same viewpoint exactly the pair side by side could be an extremely expressive idea, worthy of further exploration perhaps?
Eric: it's good to see the 120 being used to good effect. I did think about getting one instead of the 113 but in the UK the light levels would normally mean very long exposures at anything other than the widest apertures.
Mark: I haven't tried it yet, but one of the things you can do with ND filters, certainly ones that are this dense, is shoot in urban areas and effectively remove the people from a shot. It would work well in London. The 120 might be even better.
Roy: that's a great idea. I'll give it a try when I find a suitable shot.
Dave: no, no motion blur. All the bluriness in this shot is a result of the long exposure.
It's difficult to do a direct comparison with yesterday's shot. The atmospheres are completely different. I'm a sucker for long shutter speeds, so I like this one. But I'm also a sucker for heavy cloud and crashing seas, so I like yesterday's too. No winner, but two good photographs :-)
comment by vincent at 07:48 AM (GMT) on 27 May, 2006
After yesterdays storm this one is all peace and quiet :)
there is something surealistic about this image.
Ben: the easiest way to calculate the shutter speed is to use a wide aperture and a high ISO. Once you've got a shutter speed by that method it's just a matter of calculating the correct speed at a smaller aperture and lower ISO. For example, if you determine that the correct exposure at ISO 3200 is 1 second at f/4, then the correct shutter speed at ISO 100 for f/11 is 4 minutes.
comment byTobias at 12:55 PM (GMT) on 27 May, 2006
With the ND-filter. Wouldn´t it be easier to compose the image without the filter. See what the camera measures, screw the filter on and reset to an exposure that is 13 stops longer.
Just an idea. I have ordered the hoya ND400 wich darkens nine f-stops. Want it NOW..
I'm gonna have to go with number two! The dark border around the sky in yesterdays shot makes my eyes want to treat it as two separate images, they keep flicking from one to the other in a slightly sickening way. Like this one a lot though, slightly surreal, kind of looks like colour film thats not been bleached. Is the vignetting in both due to the lens/filters? Seems quite bad considering aperture, crop factor etc.
comment bykrisba at 02:14 PM (GMT) on 27 May, 2006
Very nice pic
comment byLiz Shuman at 04:42 PM (GMT) on 27 May, 2006
gorgeous picture... so very texturalized... otherworldy really...
Like this shot, this one is a long exposure daylight shot taken with a B+W ND 113 neutral density filter. In this instance it was a four minute exposure and it's a shot of the same section of groyne as yesterday's shot (though this one is flipped horizontally). And other than that it's pretty much a straight shot: the rather odd colour balance was a result of the camera attempting to work out the white balance through a largely opaque filter and the slightly diffuse effect is because it was raining, albeit quite lightly.
Anyway, and as always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, particularly in terms of how you think this one compares to yesterday's.
And again, as with yesterday's, I think this one looks better with the black theme.
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
17mm (27mm equiv.)
f/11.0
4m 0s
manual
n/a
evaluative
100
no
RAW
DxO Optics Pro
minor
very cool excellent work
by the way this way better than yesterday in my opinion of course, but i like this style of yours most. nice to see it again.
I love what the long exposure does to the water. Makes it look like you're standing at the edge of a cliff, and the clouds just rise to the top of it. I've been meaning to get a ND filter so I can do similar shots. Do they tend to be pricey? I know that the B+W C-POL filter I got second hand from my uncle was quite pricey, as far as filters go anyways.
Definitely prefer today's to yesterday's shot. I think the rather strange colour balance adds to it. It looks like it was taken during the Normandy landings in WW2, one of my faves for a while!
Thanks Dan.
Andrew: this one was expensive, not least because I had to import it from the US, but you could get a couple of reasonably priced ones and stack them.
this ones a winner in my eyes, Fantastic shot. The mutilated metal looks like its seen everything.
So tell me Dave, does the urge to get more photography toys ever die down? I've had camera's my whole life, mainly my dad's when I was younger. Recently I decided I really have to get into photography more because I love photographs. The past year has been pricey for me as I buy accessories for my camera all the time. :P
Andrew: no, not in my experience. I could quite happily spend at least £15,000 pounds on new kit with little or no thought at all: a 1Ds mkII, 24-70 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8, a new computer, a new monitor, a set of graduated Lee filters, a few more lenses, a digital rangefinder, some studio lighting, an A2 printer, another 580EX speedlite, and so on ... none of which I can currently afford :-)
Dave: That's what I was afraid of. :-P Oh well, seems most hobbies eventually go that way. At least with digital photography it doesn't cost anything to go out for a day and rattle off a few hundred pictures.
the horizon is so straight u can walk on, beautiful colors, great detail, i wish someday to have enough money to buy what i need to be able to make from my hobby something more, like u did...
I always like long exposures with water.
I'm not sure about the colouring to this one (seems a little bit too mucky)
I think it looks better with the dark theme tho... makes it a little bit brighter
I like the results of the experiments you've done so far with the ND 113. This image is beautifully dreamlike and the greenish-yellow toning helps reinforce that quality.
A suggestion for further experimentation with that filter might be to capture a scene using a bit of under-exposure, and then try coaxing out the detail using the HDR plugin. Might get some interesting or unexpected results.
I like very much the tone and the blurry of the water. The composition is perfect for me, It leads your eye from the rests of metal to the blurry water. Good work!
Outstanding, I have to get one of those 113's!
i like how crisp this image is, but the previous one is much more arresting. thanks for sharing your techniques - keeps me stocked with fresh ideas.
I wish I could spent 15.000 pounds on camera-equipment :-)
Very nice pic, the water looks misty.
Already seen. :( ( atmosphere & colors )
Bob: yep, the HDR technique might be worth trying out.
Paul: good luck with tracking one down, it took me about three months to find one.
Karl: you and me both.
coxcorns: there wouldn't be too many photographs in the world if we could only have one of each atmosphere/colour combination.
David,
comment by Mark [londonrubbish] at 08:38 PM (GMT) on 26 May, 2006
I love the long day exposures, though in this case, I like this better than yesterdays a little better... Slightly calmer and I love the smoothness of the moving waves.
I went to buy an nd 113 filter the other week, but got the 120 instead.
Firstly, they are very different shots, so I think a straight comparison is slightly unfair. However, I prefer yesterday's; the moody sky, the overall contrast, the movement in the sea, which all give it a soul. This image is good, but it just doesn't have impact, it's calmer and more serene. Also, I think the sea and sky look generated in comparison to the foreground giving too much of a contrast. My eyes keep getting dragged back to those pebbles at the very bottom. Both great images though and now I want a B + W ND filter. Not sure how that would work in London though.
Just wierd isnt it...
I like it don't get me wrong but it all just looks so wierd :)
I like the detail on the pebbles and groyne mostly in the shot.
very,very,very nice this one!!
awesome colors and perspective :)
Superb, and whilst different from yesterdays I think I like this version as it provides a clear separation of foreground to background.
I'm not a big fan of slow shutter speeds when applied to water myself, but in this shot it works brilliantly because of the mood created which for me is vital.
Funnily enough though I love slow shutter speeds when applied to humans.
Great work Dave.
Hi, haven't been folowing your blog for some reason .. i should have ..
Great mood, awesome colors, very strange but cool horizon.
What a wonderful example of photographic interpretation.
To have these two so very different images of the same scene made only a few moments apart in time and yet using time itself to change the mood and representation - impressive. Had they been from the same viewpoint exactly the pair side by side could be an extremely expressive idea, worthy of further exploration perhaps?
But then I have a personal liking for weathered groynes dissolving into a velvet sea...
I really enjoy the color/tones in this shot. It's surreal without being unreal, if that makes sense.
Wotcha! did you use motion blur on the sky? I ask because I've used it to render' iffy' focus skylines in the past...
i prefer yesterday's.
Eric: it's good to see the 120 being used to good effect. I did think about getting one instead of the 113 but in the UK the light levels would normally mean very long exposures at anything other than the widest apertures.
Mark: I haven't tried it yet, but one of the things you can do with ND filters, certainly ones that are this dense, is shoot in urban areas and effectively remove the people from a shot. It would work well in London. The 120 might be even better.
Roy: that's a great idea. I'll give it a try when I find a suitable shot.
Dave: no, no motion blur. All the bluriness in this shot is a result of the long exposure.
thlayli: yes, I think I do too.
How do you find the correct shutter speed for such a long exposure?
It's difficult to do a direct comparison with yesterday's shot. The atmospheres are completely different. I'm a sucker for long shutter speeds, so I like this one. But I'm also a sucker for heavy cloud and crashing seas, so I like yesterday's too. No winner, but two good photographs :-)
After yesterdays storm this one is all peace and quiet :)
there is something surealistic about this image.
Ben: the easiest way to calculate the shutter speed is to use a wide aperture and a high ISO. Once you've got a shutter speed by that method it's just a matter of calculating the correct speed at a smaller aperture and lower ISO. For example, if you determine that the correct exposure at ISO 3200 is 1 second at f/4, then the correct shutter speed at ISO 100 for f/11 is 4 minutes.
With the ND-filter. Wouldn´t it be easier to compose the image without the filter. See what the camera measures, screw the filter on and reset to an exposure that is 13 stops longer.
Just an idea. I have ordered the hoya ND400 wich darkens nine f-stops. Want it NOW..
Tobias: yes, it would be considerably easier, but I don't like switching filters or lenses on the beach - too much sand and salt.
I'm gonna have to go with number two! The dark border around the sky in yesterdays shot makes my eyes want to treat it as two separate images, they keep flicking from one to the other in a slightly sickening way. Like this one a lot though, slightly surreal, kind of looks like colour film thats not been bleached. Is the vignetting in both due to the lens/filters? Seems quite bad considering aperture, crop factor etc.
Very nice pic
gorgeous picture... so very texturalized... otherworldy really...
Fantastic effect! The colors really worked out nicely. Beautiful exposure.
Thanks everyone.
Can't chose this one over the other as I do not like the colour palette.
nil nil for a change :-)