First Water Sunset

[lunathea]

This weekend was my first chance at shooting a water/sunset scene. The sky was kind of meh from a extremely overcast day, the sun broke through for about half a second once I think . Used a cheapo gnd filter, removed a buoy and boosted the colors a tad in gimp. It looks a tad bit darker condensed so if you could view it full and let me know what you think I'd be much obliged. Thanks!

~Ali



Rebel T2i
Exposure 2
Aperture f/29.0
Focal Length 29 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV

[mwanafunzi]

Before I kick of with the critique, as per the forum rules, you are better served asking more specific questions.

There are few things that I think are not quite right with the photo. The first, is that it is underexposed (at least on the screen I am using).
Secondly, it is slightly out of focus/soft (not sure which is more appropriate to use) and finally, the bars on the right of the pier are quite distracting - probably because they are interfering with the land-water line.

I think you could increase your aperture by a few stops (maybe even to f/16) and in gimp you could use the unsharp mask filter, to sharpen the image. if you havent used it before here is a good article on luminous landscape that should hopefully help.

[Doug Sundseth]

It looks like you're tilted a bit to the right. This might be the result of the opposiite lakeshore not being perpendicular to your shot, but when a strong horizontal line is just out of the horizontal, it's a bit distracting.

I agree that the photo (both here and on Flickr) is underexposed by at least a stop.

I also agree that the photo would be improved by the pier supports not ending in the silhouette of the far side of the lake. (I think the nearest support, that pierces the shadow entirely, is fine.) If you were shooting from a bit higher, you could probably fix this.

The sky you were working with is pretty sketchy for a sunset photo, but with that sky, you might have done well to wait another few minutes to get richer colors. Note that this only works sometimes; the rest of the time you lose the light entirely. But if you didn't wait out the full afterglow, you might have missed an opportunity for better light.

The other advantage of waiting until a bit later is that the dynamic range drops as the light falls off, so it's a bit easier to balance the sky against the rest of the photo and to use a sharper aperture. At 29mm, your hyperfocal distance at f/11 is 12.9 ft (Online Depth of Field Calculator) and you'll be sharp from 6½ feet to infinity without much of the diffraction softness that comes with f/29.

HTH

[lunathea]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I ended up going back and correcting the tilt and lightening it a bit, sharpened it, I also chopped down the supports, any better?



Doug that link is awesome tyvm. I was wondering though, with a larger aperture how do I still achieve a longer exposure?

[crockny]

I like it -- I just wish the pier didn't point to the middle of the photo -- more of a diagonal angle so that the pier pointed to the upper right would work better for me - I like the colors ...

[Krusty79]

I think you're doing a lot of things right now. You just need a more colorful sunset for more impact. A minor thing - I would clone out the top half of that tall bar on the right side of the pier.

Someone sitting/fishing on the end of the pier might make a nice focal point if you go back.

[Doug Sundseth]

Originally Posted by lunathea

Doug that link is awesome tyvm. I was wondering though, with a larger aperture how do I still achieve a longer exposure?

I take it you're trying to smooth out the water? The normal solution is to use an ND filter ( which can be stacked with an ND grad if you need to). I'll warn you that it can make composing, and sometimes even focussing, quite difficult.

I use them pretty regularly for waterfalls and whitewater, though I just changed my primary walking-around lens, so now I need to rebuy at 72mm.

[lunathea]

Originally Posted by Doug Sundseth

I take it you're trying to smooth out the water? The normal solution is to use an ND filter ( which can be stacked with an ND grad if you need to). I'll warn you that it can make composing, and sometimes even focussing, quite difficult.

I use them pretty regularly for waterfalls and whitewater, though I just changed my primary walking-around lens, so now I need to rebuy at 72mm.

Yup smooth water with the bit of color was what I was going for. I kind of wanted the sunset to reflect how the entire weekend was for me, an extremely peaceful and needed camping trip. I was actually using both a circular ND4 and square ND grad and was still getting extreme amounts of light well after the sun had set. They're both cheapo filters, got them just to get an idea of how to use them before I upgrade.

[navcom]

The other posts are right...use a wider aperture setting. The fuzzyness in your image is diffraction, which is caused by very small aperture openings. It starts to show itself around f/16 on most lenses and the smaller you go, the more it becomes evident.

For landscape photography, sharpness is everything. The aperture's most important function in landscapes is controlling depth of field. Using the aperture to control your shutter speed for landscapes is kind of like using duct tape to fix a broken window. It will do the job but it's not really the proper fix and it will have other consequences.

Set your aperture first for the amount of DOF you need in your image keeping in mind the trade-off with diffraction. For 95% of landscapes, an aperture between about f/11 and f/16 is all you will need. If you need to slow down the shutter, use an ND filter as Doug suggests. Solid ND's were designed just for that job and they work great.

Looks like a neat location!

[lunathea]

Any advice on a gnd filter to pick up that won't break the bank, I'm on a fairly tight budget? Plus I am a huge klutz (I actually dropped the gnd filter this weekend, scratched near the corner at least it won't show up in anything). I have the Cokin P holder for a square set.

Thanks for all the help!