This shot has annoyed me on several occasions since I shot it back in February as I really struggled to come up with a version I liked. What made it especially annoying is that I couldn't work out why: it has all the ingredients of a decent shot – the composition works, there's some good detail in the sky, the exposure's OK, and so on – but no matter what I tried I kept up with something that looked almost as drab as the original. To give you an idea about what I mean, here's an earlier version:
With my previous attempts I'd assumed that the sky needed to be dark and dramatic – it seemed like the best solution, both technically and aesthetically. Despite numerous attempts though it either ended up looking drab (as with the version I linked above) or overly dark.
Today though, while sitting in the Ford garage in VT waiting for them to change a couple of wheel bearings on our van, I tried something different, i.e. adding a very steep curve to brighten the mid-tone values in the clouds. It might not be the best solution for this image – I'm sure there's probably at least another couple of versions lurking in there somewhere that would top this one – but it's definitely a whole lot better than it was :-)
As always, let me know what you think.
captured camera lens focal length aperture shutter speed shooting mode exposure bias metering mode ISO flash image quality RAW converter image editor plugins (etc) cropped?
comment byScott at 04:27 PM (GMT) on 29 April, 2011
Minimal and cool. Nicely done!
comment byCarlos Garcia at 04:28 PM (GMT) on 29 April, 2011
What can I say? It's the shore :) I like this capture and the details and contrast that your processing brings out. When I click on your other version I get the dreaded "Not Found" web page. That's okay... I'm sure I would like it anyway :)
comment bydjn1 at 05:04 PM (GMT) on 29 April, 2011
Thanks Scott, and thanks Carlos too :) Oh, and I've fixed the link - sorry about that.
comment byClaus Petersen at 05:48 PM (GMT) on 29 April, 2011
A simple but very dynamic shot here, nice work as always.
comment by Trevor Page at 06:47 PM (GMT) on 29 April, 2011
I always look at the before and after versions prior to reading the comments. My first impression was 'how on earth did you manage to get so much detail in that sky' It's breathtaking. Your deliberations have paid off IMO. This site continues to be very good value for money.
comment byLuisa at 10:15 PM (GMT) on 29 April, 2011
Is it processed in lab mode? Of course the sky is spectacular compared with the previous version.
comment bydjn1 at 05:54 AM (GMT) on 30 April, 2011
Claus and Trevor: thanks.
Luisa: no. I did try a Lab Color version, but this one is RGB.
comment byCharlie Tupman at 04:12 PM (GMT) on 25 October, 2012
Love this image, so crisp, is this HDR by any chance as I have been trying to get ocean shots similar to this but I find it very hard to get the exposure right.
Hi Charlie, no, this isn't an HDR, it's just selectively edited to bring out the detail in different areas of the image. As for your point about exposure: do you mean you can't get it right in camera, or during post-production?
This shot has annoyed me on several occasions since I shot it back in February as I really struggled to come up with a version I liked. What made it especially annoying is that I couldn't work out why: it has all the ingredients of a decent shot – the composition works, there's some good detail in the sky, the exposure's OK, and so on – but no matter what I tried I kept up with something that looked almost as drab as the original. To give you an idea about what I mean, here's an earlier version:
.../archives/fleetwood_light.php
Not great.
With my previous attempts I'd assumed that the sky needed to be dark and dramatic – it seemed like the best solution, both technically and aesthetically. Despite numerous attempts though it either ended up looking drab (as with the version I linked above) or overly dark.
Today though, while sitting in the Ford garage in VT waiting for them to change a couple of wheel bearings on our van, I tried something different, i.e. adding a very steep curve to brighten the mid-tone values in the clouds. It might not be the best solution for this image – I'm sure there's probably at least another couple of versions lurking in there somewhere that would top this one – but it's definitely a whole lot better than it was :-)
As always, let me know what you think.
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
image editor
plugins (etc)
cropped?
Canon 5D Mark II
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
57mm
f/8.0
1/50
aperture priority
+2/3
evaluative
100
no
RAW
Camera Raw
Photoshop CS5
none
minor rotation
Minimal and cool. Nicely done!
What can I say? It's the shore :) I like this capture and the details and contrast that your processing brings out. When I click on your other version I get the dreaded "Not Found" web page. That's okay... I'm sure I would like it anyway :)
Thanks Scott, and thanks Carlos too :) Oh, and I've fixed the link - sorry about that.
A simple but very dynamic shot here, nice work as always.
I always look at the before and after versions prior to reading the comments. My first impression was 'how on earth did you manage to get so much detail in that sky' It's breathtaking. Your deliberations have paid off IMO. This site continues to be very good value for money.
Is it processed in lab mode? Of course the sky is spectacular compared with the previous version.
Claus and Trevor: thanks.
Luisa: no. I did try a Lab Color version, but this one is RGB.
It looks nice, i really appreciate your effort.
I love the crispness of detail, particulary the horizon line and beach/water edge.
Thanks everyone :)
Love this image, so crisp, is this HDR by any chance as I have been trying to get ocean shots similar to this but I find it very hard to get the exposure right.
Hi Charlie, no, this isn't an HDR, it's just selectively edited to bring out the detail in different areas of the image. As for your point about exposure: do you mean you can't get it right in camera, or during post-production?