# Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves - Round 2



## Promature (Nov 25, 2012)

Ok, still waiting for my tripod and polarizer and grad ND filter, so these were all handheld. Please let me know what you think about the compositions. Also, should I speed up or slow down the shutter? My wife doesn't like all the motion, so I want to hear what other people think. The only post processing was to add a graduated ND filter on the sky and increase the exposure on the beach.
Image 2541 was shot using a parking bollard for stabilization. ISO 100, 55mm, f5.6, 1/4s
Image 2568 - ISO 100, 28mm, f8, 1/20s
Image 2662 - ISO 100, 55mm, f16, 1/30s
Image 2701 - ISO 100, 55mm, f16, 1/30s


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 25, 2012)

Promature said:


> Ok, still waiting for my tripod and polarizer and grad ND filter, so these were all handheld. Please let me know what you think about the compositions. Also, should I speed up or slow down the shutter? My wife doesn't like all the motion, so I want to hear what other people think. The only post processing was to add a graduated ND filter on the sky and increase the exposure on the beach.
> Image 2541 was shot using a parking bollard for stabilization. ISO 100, 55mm, f5.6, 1/4s
> Image 2568 - ISO 100, 28mm, f8, 1/20s
> Image 2662 - ISO 100, 55mm, f16, 1/30s
> Image 2701 - ISO 100, 55mm, f16, 1/30s



In my humble opinion, 3rd one composition looks alright (actually great potential...) though if I'm going to do it, I'll gonna make a little bit the foreground darker by bringing down the exposure a little bit. Also the clouds and sun will be more emphasized this way. It will also bring out the color more. As for the rest, a more interesting foreground is warranted, maybe a boat or something. I don't know if it will help you but let me share one of my photos (HDR'd a little bit to bring out the colors). I also used a sunset graduated filter here.


----------



## Eli (Nov 25, 2012)

Alot better than your first set of images, well done. Though I still think you're missing something in the foreground, maybe try get closer to some rocks or something.
Also try to level the horizon, make it a horizontally straight line, preferably in camera or if not then via post processing / cropping.


----------



## trygved (Nov 25, 2012)

I personally like the slow shutter speed.
As was mentioned by somebody in the previous thread, it looks like a bomb going off.
Nothing excites me about a photo that has been taken a million times, no matter how well it is shot.
What does catch my attention is seeing it in a way that I haven't seen often (or at all).

That being said, I would suggest varying your composition a lot to find what best gives you the effect you are looking for.
All of these images provided are taken at a similar height and similar angle.
If the composition isn't entirely working for you, gradually get lower and closer until you find something that really grabs your eye.

I would also like to see this series with a wider lens, but that is more my own artistic preference.


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 25, 2012)

I like it. 

Here is another approach: some Rebel don't remember model with 10-22 lens @10mm, EwaMarine underwater housing, and not being afraid of water. That big blob was smashing in my face and camera just fraction of a second later. Maybe will post later when, I find the one "under" water and sand actually. 
This was taken just some 50 mil south from your location.


----------



## trygved (Nov 25, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> I like it.
> 
> Here is another approach: some Rebel don't remember model with 10-22 lens @10mm, EwaMarine underwater housing, and not being afraid of water. That big blob was smashing in my face and camera just fraction of a second later. Maybe will post later when, I find the one "under" water and sand actually.
> This was taken just some 50 mil south from your location.



This is spectacular, btw.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Nov 25, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> Here is another approach: some Rebel don't remember model with 10-22 lens @10mm, EwaMarine underwater housing, and not being afraid of water. That big blob was smashing in my face and camera just fraction of a second later. Maybe will post later when, I find the one "under" water and sand actually.



Please do post that! Could you also tell us a little about any post-processing as well?


----------



## sanj (Nov 25, 2012)

Straightened the horizon. Adjusted the brightness. Increased color.


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 25, 2012)

Hesbehindyou said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another approach: some Rebel don't remember model with 10-22 lens @10mm, EwaMarine underwater housing, and not being afraid of water. That big blob was smashing in my face and camera just fraction of a second later. Maybe will post later when, I find the one "under" water and sand actually.
> ...



Here is something, I have found a primitive quick time movie made of sequential shots, no time to go through my files. Simple post processing, levels, color adjustment and contrast, don't remember the details. Taken during "Noel" several years back.


----------



## Promature (Nov 27, 2012)

Very cool, thank you for sharing.


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 27, 2012)

getting down lower and closer to some of those rocks to give the foreground some more interest might be cool, but a wider lens(or setting) would probably help too


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 27, 2012)

Promature said:


> Very cool, thank you for sharing.



Thank you, but you may get in trouble pricing me so openly... I am a "black sheep" around here, I dare to criticize canon  
And to top it of (God have mercy) I hate HDR!!!


----------



## Promature (Nov 27, 2012)

> Thank you, but you may get in trouble pricing me so openly... I am a "black sheep" around here, I dare to criticize canon
> And to top it of (God have mercy) I hate HDR!!!



Haha, no problem. I am with you about HDR to some degree. I don't mind when it looks natural, but after a certain point it just looks overdone and/or fake. That's why I am buying a graduated ND filter and and polarizing filter; I'd rather get the shot right with optics so that the end photo remains true to the scene.


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 27, 2012)

I love the concept of HDR, but often hate the results, often too fake looking. most non-photogs probably love it and think there really is a place in the world that looks like that tho, and think my shots are just bland, like cream-of-wheat. Black-and-white also irks me. Dopnt get me wrong, a LOT of shots bring out emotion with black and white. You can take a colorful scene and make it look somber and sad almost. But when John Doe takes his cellphone pic of some crappy underlit party, and make it B+W all of a sudden it is a masterpiece. ok my rant is done.

Anyways, your wave shots are all learning experiance, as are all shots. The more you shoot the more you will learn to see the scene as your camera will. You are not bad, I feel bad offering advice, as if you are BAD. you are doing great, and we all will have our own tastes in what a great shot should be. If you are happy with a shot, thats what counts


----------



## Promature (Nov 27, 2012)

Ryan708 said:


> Anyways, your wave shots are all learning experiance, as are all shots. The more you shoot the more you will learn to see the scene as your camera will. You are not bad, I feel bad offering advice, as if you are BAD. you are doing great, and we all will have our own tastes in what a great shot should be. If you are happy with a shot, thats what counts



I appreciate the feedback. My Lensrentals sale EF-S 10-22 came today and my other support equipment should be here by the end of the week. I intend to reshot this scene several times, in the hopes that by practicing on one scene, I will learn how to shoot others. I already like some of the shots I took, but I want them to be even better.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 28, 2012)

Much better than your last set. The third one has a lot of potential. Definitely work on adding some foreground interest otherwise you are shooting wide for the sake of being wide. A level horizon and being mindful of the rule of thirds when placing your horizon will go a long way to adding some interest. Don't be afraid to also "set the stage". there is nothing that says you cant bring props or move stuff around. I've got a bunch of household brickabrac i sometimes take down to the beach when there looks to be a good sunset. I can place an interesting item anywhere I want along the sand to add some interest then focus on it close and set a small aperture.


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 28, 2012)

Nice, that 10-22 should open up some possibilities, I would love to own that lens!


----------



## dlleno (Nov 28, 2012)

love the 10-22. just to lighten up the mood, here is a wave that hasn't crashed yet lol. taken with the 10-22 REAL close. no underwater housing. camera moving with the wave firing away at 6fps. I got drenched but the camera didn't


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 28, 2012)

dlleno said:


> love the 10-22. just to lighten up the mood, here is a wave that hasn't crashed yet lol. taken with the 10-22 REAL close. no underwater housing. camera moving with the wave firing away at 6fps. I got drenched but the camera didn't



Wow!
Just wonder why do you have so much magenta in the left upper corner, is that color fringe or famous red noise, which may be the case because the same thing you can see on the lower right in the dark parts of the water with no contrast. 
In case if this was produced by the 10-22 lens, you probably have a bad copy.


----------



## stipotle (Nov 28, 2012)

I agree - there's definite improvement. 
A couple things - I think these could stand to be brightened, (or take a brighter exposure), and a little more contrast (though not HDR). 

Also (more importantly) compositionally, try to focus more on *what it is* that you are taking the picture of. 
Sky? Waves? Rocks? 
Practice picking only one and build the composition around that. 
For example - I love the surf in the 4th shot. There could really be something there, but because the rocks are so much in the forefront the distract from what could be the stellar subject matter. 

Great job.


----------



## dlleno (Nov 28, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > love the 10-22. just to lighten up the mood, here is a wave that hasn't crashed yet lol. taken with the 10-22 REAL close. no underwater housing. camera moving with the wave firing away at 6fps. I got drenched but the camera didn't
> ...



well, now you have me doubting that this was in fact the 10-22; the no contrast in the water could be flare, and this could have been the 17-55, although the color fringing at the top of the wave is characteristic 10-22. 

as for the magenta itself, I suspect that is an artifact of heavy pp; probably pushed the red sat slider too far. the colors were pretty wacked in post, so that the wave didn't appear too green and poluted


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 28, 2012)

dlleno said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



 
Depth of field seems bit to shallow to, you know, I have taped the focusing ring on that lens and using as fixed focus most of the time! 
It has enough depth for regular landscaping work even at f5.6, the only problem is when I have to, very rarely zoom in, it needs small correction to the focus.


----------



## dlleno (Nov 28, 2012)

Sunnystate said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > Sunnystate said:
> ...



yes, I had the CP on, and now I think this was taken with the 17-55. my apologies for drifting the thread here. also -- part of the reason the foreground is not sharp is due to motion blur -- the camera was held at about a foot from the water surface in front of the wave, without me looking through the viewfinder, and moving rapidly in many vectors to pace the incoming wave. at the last moment I stuck the camera into the air and took the wave, which was probably only 3 feet high, I would say. I think the lack of contrast is partially due to lens flare, and the magenta cast is partially because red has been pushed to bring out the sand, which was only a few inches below the water surface. 

I just put this photo up for fun. please continue with the OP's inquiry, and discuss the other related shots


----------



## Rick Massie (Nov 28, 2012)

They look good! If you want to improve them, I think your best bet is to wait for better light. It looks duskish, or very cloudy in these photos, but if you get a low sun shining through, it'll add contrast and clarity to the waves and splashes, and possibly nice colours as well. Keep trying the location in different light to get a feel for what works best. 

Also, it may help to add something to the foreground (ie, a person in the frame - don't let them get too close to the waves though!) to give a sense of scale. Waves and rocks can greatly vary in size, and without something in your frame for size reference, it's sometimes hard to tell whether the wave is big or small. 

Just some thoughts from my years shooting beaches and ocean in Newfoundland.


----------



## scottc (Nov 28, 2012)

I totally agree with the foreground - IMHO it adds a great deal to an ocean/wave image. I think the context added from that plus the tripod you mentioned will help your already nice images. I started using a full tripod, cable release and filter landscape setup about a year ago, and found that while it does take a bit to set up shots, the extra time and effort has made me think through the composition and settings of my shots much more and has resulted in images I am much happier with than before. These two were from a trip to Big Sur last week, and I think start to show a little of the context that foreground can add





Rick Massie said:


> They look good! If you want to improve them, I think your best bet is to wait for better light. It looks duskish, or very cloudy in these photos, but if you get a low sun shining through, it'll add contrast and clarity to the waves and splashes, and possibly nice colours as well. Keep trying the location in different light to get a feel for what works best.
> 
> Also, it may help to add something to the foreground (ie, a person in the frame - don't let them get too close to the waves though!) to give a sense of scale. Waves and rocks can greatly vary in size, and without something in your frame for size reference, it's sometimes hard to tell whether the wave is big or small.
> 
> Just some thoughts from my years shooting beaches and ocean in Newfoundland.


----------

