Newbie shots on the beach

Hi all,


I'm wondering what you guys think of these two pictures of surfers walking into the ocean. Specifically:


a) which do you like better with regard to composition? I like how in the first one there is space in the direction they are walking, but i wish surfer #2 was forward a step or two and surfer #3 (barely pictured) was a step or 2 back. Unfortunately I didn't know these people so they probably thought it weird enough that I was photographing them, let alone if I started directing them. [:)]


b) are they properly exposed? I'm thinking they could have benefited from maybe 1/3 stop less light, to make the sky more vivid and the surfers more silhouetted. would you agree?





Picture 1: Canon xSI / Canon 50 mm f/1.4 - Settings: Av, f/8, 1/1000 s, ISO 200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.41.77/IMG_5F00_0906_5F00_small.JPG[/img]





Picture 2: Canon xSI / Canon 50 mm f/1.4 - Settings: Av, f/8, 1/800 s, ISO 200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.41.77/IMG_5F00_0907_5F00_small.JPG[/img]





Any other comments/feedback are welcome as well!





Cheers,


Matt





p.s. first time posting in this forum so please excuse me if I did not follow the rules and or I posted the pictures the wrong way!

Nice shots!


I prefer the second one from a composition sense (would be even better without the surfer on the left in the picture, though). In the first one, the truncation of the surfboard at the right edge of the frame, and the barely discernible 3rd board poking in bother me.


I agree that the exposure could be adjusted downward a little bit - but, not so much that the surfers become complete silhouettes, as I'd prefer to have enough brightness to distinguish them from their boards.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree the guy getting cut off in the first picture bothers me too. Ah, well...


Here's a few more from the same day at the beach. I welcome any and all feedback!





Picture 1: A wall on the beach. There's not really a particular subject of interest, but I kind of like it as a desktop background type image. I also have a black and white crop of this in a 5"x5" frame that I think looks nice.


Canon xSi, Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro ; Settings: Av, f/4.5, 1/2000s, ISO 200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.41.77/IMG_5F00_0861_5F00_small.jpg[/img]





Picture 2: Me sneaking up on an unsuspecting sea gull. I half like the picture and half just think it's funny (don't ask me why).


Canon xSi, Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro ; Settings: Av, f/4, 1/4000s, ISO 100


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.41.77/IMG_5F00_0871_5F00_small.jpg[/img]








Picture 3: One of those surfers lost his board in the ocean and I ran up and snapped a pic of it when it landed on the shore as quickly as possible. I wish it was a tad zoomed out, and again, could probably have used a little less light, but I didn't have much time to set up.


Canon xSi, Canon 50mm f/1.4 ; Settings: Av, f/8, 1/250s, ISO 200


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.41.77/IMG_5F00_0920_5F00_small.jpg[/img]





Thanks again for your feedback!


Matt

Like the first one, definitely better in B&W. Really like the second one, too. Bothered by the very non-level horizon line in #3, but really like the concept.

Interesting point, I hadn't even noticed the steep slope of the horizon until you pointed it out. It should have a slight slant to it though, since I wasn't looking directly out at the ocean, but more like 45 degrees to the right, correct? I'm not disagreeing with you, but just trying to picture if I turned it a few degrees the board would almost be flat, but I recall it sloping downhill from me.


I did this on another shot (skyline), and didn't notice all the buildings were slightly slanted until someone pointed it out to me. Now I can't look at it without seeing it that way, so I tweaked it a bit in Photoshop and am going to reprint it. Maybe I'll post that one in a new thread since it's unrelated, but I should get additional feedback before I go for the $18 20x30 print again :). It also has a line in the foreground that slants but I think it is natural, because again, I'm not facing it directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salazarbrujo

It looks like a bright day,so wouldnt the high ISO be a negative?

---

He used either ISO 100 or ISO 200 for all the shots. Those ISOs are low. ISO 100 is the lowest possible setting for any Canon dSLR except the 1-series bodies. Also, he was shooting scenes with some bright highlights, and thus may have had Highlight Tone Priority enabled - that function eliminates ISO 100 as an option, so ISO 200 would then be the lowest possible setting.


If I may suggest without offending, you might want to read some tutorials (books, internet) or take an introductory photo class to learn the basics of the 'exposure triangle' (aperture, shutter speed, ISO).

Truth be told, I was probably using the "Auto ISO" setting. These shots were taken in my first 3-6 months using a DSLR, and I wasn't as "aware" of the ISO settings I was using at the time. I knew what it did, but I rarely played with it. If i were shooting this scenario again, I probably would lock it at ISO 100 (lowest on my xSi).


I'm not sure what the "highlight tone priority" setting is, so I can almost assure that I wasn't using that, at least not intentionally [:)]. I remember that I discovered what the "asterisk" button did that day (what's that called, exposure lock?), so I was playing around a lot with that. Probably locking on the sky near the sun with spot metering in the center, and then reframing as needed. Very useful feature, glad I discovered that!

Auto ISO will choose the lowest ISO it can, while still maintaining adequately high shutter speed for your focal length (in Av mode), or a 'middle' aperture (in Tv mode).


Highlight Tone Priority is a C.Fn (custom function) which attempts to prevent blown highlights. It does that via underexposing by one stop, then increasing exposure during image processing to preserve highlights. That's why ISO 100 is unavailable with HTP enabled (i.e., when set to the minimum of ISO 200, the camera is actually exposing at ISO 100 then processing back up to ISO 200). Note that the 'cost' of highlight preservation is an increase in noise in the shadow regions.


Yes, AE Lock is a very useful feature!

Totally love the second shot!! I played around a bit (just a tiny tiny bit) with it in DPP: I just edited the overall curve a bit. This should look something like "linear contrast"... I suggest you try using it on the other pictures. If you shot in RAW format you can click on the button right under "Constrast" in the RAW editing window in DPP :D


http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/7899/dpp0001z.jpg





Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salazarbrujo

Hello, I apologize for the intrusion. I felt as if I must contribute to the theme of your post! I enjoyed your photos,and I wish you many days of luck,on your new hobby! Im still needing to explain my hobby, to the Mrs.! (8

---

And downsize your photos to 800pixels wide before posting them here [:P] Forum only supports 800 pixels wide.

Hey Matt,


first of all welcome to the forum and great photos!!


I think your photos are pretty good exposed, perhaps 1/3 stop darker, but I wouldn't change too much.


I personally like it that you still can see detail and that the persons aren't dark silhouettes.


My favorites are the 2nd one of your first post and the 3rd one of your second post(btw that one is begging for HDR[:P]) The thing about the first photo that I don't like is that the second surfer is cut-off.


I would recommend you to do a little post-processing if you know how to. Andy, I like the idea of your edit, but I think it's a bit over-done. In my opinion it's too saturated(orange) and as I said before I like to see a little more detail in the surfers, but that's a personal favor.


Jan

I totally get what you mean Jan... what I did was just to show the way I'd go... hehe, plus I'm not good in post, my hand is always a bit heavy, you know what I mean? hahaha


Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumien

Totally love the second shot!! I played around a bit (just a tiny tiny bit) with it in DPP: I just edited the overall curve a bit. This should look something like "linear contrast"... I suggest you try using it on the other pictures. If you shot in RAW format you can click on the button right under "Constrast" in the RAW editing window in DPP :D

---

Cool! I definitely like the more vivid colors in the sky. Maybe I can go for somewhere in the middle where there's a bit more definition in the surfboards still. Unfortunately back then I did not shoot in RAW so I only have JPEG. I only recently discovered RAW and everything you can do with it in DPP. I still have no idea what all that tone curve stuff is about... anyone have any sites that explain that stuff well?

My suggestion is just to play around with it. But I say that because I like to find things out myself :).


as for what I did in the tone cruve: I selected a point on the line somewhere close to the right and pulled it down (this should somehow take care of highlights) and then to alter constrast you can either scroll the bar that says "constrast" ( hahaha) or you could pull towards the center the left and right sides of the square you can see. If you put your mouse over those, you'll see a horizontal arrow appear...


Maybe (read: of course) I wasn't that clear, so if you need more explanation just ask :D.


Andy

Both are really great shots. At f/8, all is sharp. For a similar sky like this, I'll try shots at f/8, f/11, and even f/16 and play around with exposure compensation. I agree with other posters that going doing a full stop on exposure compensation would add dramatic hues to your wonderful sky. Unless you know the surfers, I would be fine with keeping them in silhouette. Of course if they are friends or family and you want to highlight them as your subject, keeping them just out of silhouette would be desired (my opinion of course).


I do agree with Neuroanatomist in that the horizon should be horizontal (in general), unless you're going really artsy in which case you could deliberately throw it off at something like 45 degrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattyg1027

I only recently discovered RAW and everything you can do with it in DPP. I still have no idea what all that tone curve stuff is about... anyone have any sites that explain that stuff well?

---

I don't really have sites or anything. But I can see that you're better of to start in DPP for instance than Photoshop [:P]


I learned all post-processing myself by just trying and with help of others (also help from around here). The tone-curve is something I don't even use...I'm learning about it a bit at the moment. I use lightroom and just go by all the sliders and slide them to both ends and see what happens.


The tone curve is a line-graph which displays the amount of light from highlights to shadows. You can pull or push this line anywhere between both ends and this way you can precisely adjust lighting in specific light-areas. Hmm I don't know if my explaining helps a lot since I'm getting confused myself now [:P]


Search google images for tone curve and you might get an idea what to look for. But personally I think you're better off by trying a few sliders like exposure, fill-light, shadows, blacks, contrast, saturation, vibrance, shaprness etc etc


Jan