First attempt at coastal photography

[insigniades]

Hi all, I recently got my hands on an EOS 60D (upgrade from an EOS 450D) and decided to get out over the bank holiday weekend to get some photos!

Here are a select few of my faves, constructive criticism please

BTW these are my first real attempt at landscape, I'm used to insect, animal and portrait.



See full set at http://www.gt-photo.co.uk/landscape/

Camera: Canon EOS 60D
Lens: 18-50mm f/3.5
Shot at 28 mm
Shutter speed: 30 second
f7.1
ISO 100

How could I possibly improve this image? I realise f7.1 is not ideal and should have been f16+ to get a completely sharp picture.

[windrider86]

Please be sure to include the information asked for in the rules/guidelines. Thank you in advance for editing your post!

[Doug Sundseth]

You needn't worry about the aperture. With that focal length, camera, and body, and assuming you were focusing around 100' (30m) in front of the lens, your depth of field runs from about 30' to infinity. Since the only thing that close is water that you're blurring with the shutter speed anyway, you're not losing anything.

It's more likely that any softness or blur was caused by camera movement, given that the subject isn't likely wandering around. At a guess, I'd say the most likely culprit is wind vibrating the tripod and camera, especially if you have your camera strap still attached when taking this sort of photo.

There's a nice composition here, but it's buried down in the what you shot. IMO, there is way too much negative space around the edges of the photo that is not helping your image at all. The interesting parts of the photo (for me, anyway) are the lighthouse and mole, so I'd recommend zooming in significantly, while keeping the horizon in about the same place in the frame as you have it now.

[insigniades]

Hi Doug

Thanks for the response, I must admit - I do agree that there is too much negative space on the photo, I did take another closer in to the lighthouse:



This one has more impact if you ask me!

Thanks!

[Corey Thompson]

I agree with Doug about there being too much negative space in the first shot. I like the composition of the second shot much better.

[Infinite Monkey]

You've got some lovely elements in the first shot. The sky is very dramatic and adds a lot to the overall and the long exposure has smoothed out the water to provide a nice counterpoint to that sky. Still, though, I agree with the other posters that the 2nd shot does a nicer job of presenting the subject. It does look like there's still some detail available in the sky in the 2nd shot. Maybe you can work to bring out some more of that while maintaining the rest of the image as it is.

[doctorjames]

only a quick comment on this one from me:

I like the composition of the first shot. It should be far to boring and bland, but the colours and mood from the sky and sea are fantastic IMHO.

The one thing that breaks it for me however is the blurring of the sky, especially at the bright part at about 12 oclock position. Its blurred because of the long exposure, but not smoothed enough. A longer more stopped down exposure may have helped with this. It is just this patch that 'confuses' my eyes and makes it a little uncomfortable to look at.

Hope this helps, aside from that little comment, I really like it

James

[andy_mcadam]

The second image but in portrait orientation might have been nice so you got the lighthouse and the dramatic sky.

[Krusty79]

I actually like the first image better. To me, the 2nd one just looks like a snapshot. The first image could use a little crop, but you have conveyed a sense of mystery and spaciousness that is gone from the 2nd image, IMO. To put it another way, I feel an emotional connection to the first shot, but not the 2nd.