Nasugbu, Batangas

[Derek Cantillan]

located Latitude (DMS): 14° 4' 26 N Longitude (DMS): 120° 38' 1 E west coast of the Philippines

 

[Asher Kelman]

located Latitude (DMS): 14° 4' 26 N Longitude (DMS): 120° 38' 1 E west coast of the Philippines

Hi Derek,

Beach pictures allow us to compose with wide expanses of sky, water and sand and so get horizontal sweeps of color. This you have done well. What surprises me is the middle zone between the sand and water where you have soft and lovely arcing bands of color in addition to what I'd expect. These areas are not sharp yet the foreground rock and the distant ship seem very well defined. So what is going on?

Asher

Thanks for updating the image URL. I joined the two posts.

 

[Derek Cantillan]

sir,
here's my workflow

adjust levels
USM 100, 3, 0

can you give me some tips on how to sharpen the middle part?

thanks

btw

i'm using D90 + tokina 11-16mm, nd110, lee .9se ndg

 

[Asher Kelman]

Derek,

This picture is taken with a D90 at 13 mm so I'd guess that's equivalent to 20.8mm in a full frame 35mm camera. The f16 aperture is a challenge to use to still get the sharpest images as you are at the point where degradation occurs as you fine pixels are likely imaging the diffraction interference caused by the edge of the tiny aperture. I know you want greater depth of field but you might find that dropping the aperture to 5.6 could perhaps give a sharper image. You will have to experiment using a tripod.

I imagine now that you simply blurred that waves coming in by the slow 1/60 shutter speed. Creamed water, waves and waterfalls is a respected passion, so that may have been your intent and that seems to be the cause of the beautiful pastel arcs of color along where the beach and water meet. That would explain that this zone is not as sharp as the sky and boat.

Asher​

 

[Winston Mitchell]

I like the image except that the rock appears to be somehow artificial. Can you give us the complete workflow for this image? Sharpening radius = 3 pixels?

The rock looks like a lot of "clarity" has been applied.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I like the image except that the rock appears to be somehow artificial. Can you give us the complete workflow for this image? Sharpening radius = 3 pixels?

The rock looks like a lot of "clarity" has been applied.

Winston,

Yes, you're right here. I'd use the idea that the rock doesn't seem to belong to the rest of the picture. Still, you must admit that the soft pastel impressionist colors at the water's edge are fascinating.

Asher

 

[Andrew Stannard]

I'd use the idea that the rock doesn't seem to belong to the rest of the picture.

I think it is the lack of obvious shadow that causes this effect - without shadow there's nothing to ground it on the beach. I say lack of obvious shadow, because I think there is a hint of a shadow on the bottom left of the rock. The camera angle it was taken from seems to have hidden most of it.

In the early days of 3D Computer Games you used to get the same effect - shadows were computationally intensive and so not used - making it look as if objects were just stuck onto the rest of the scene like cardboard cutouts

Derek - Lovely image by the way! If the pastel effect in the middle ground is due to long(ish) shutter speed, then it has worked out nicely. Perhaps there is a tad too much empty space on the left of the picture, and would be tempted to crop a little myself.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I think it is the lack of obvious shadow that causes this effect - without shadow there's nothing to ground it on the beach. I say lack of obvious shadow, because I think there is a hint of a shadow on the bottom left of the rock. The camera angle it was taken from seems to have hidden most of it.

Andy,

It's not the camera angle, rather the length of the shadow is inadequate because of the time of day. These shots depend on the low angle of the sun adding dimension naturally rather than relying on severe sharpening. The crop you suggest works on this but is, IMHO not the solution.


Derek,

I like the picture. Maybe that rock has been moved by the tide. If this is near you, then perhaps, if you have time, do what Monet and Adams did, go back when the light is right and do it again!

Asher

 

[Winston Mitchell]

I think the problem is over-sharpening.

 

[Asher Kelman]

sir,
here's my workflow

adjust levels
USM 100, 3, 0

Derek,

I'd never use 3 pixels wide for this 100 % sharpening using the unsharp mask. I suggest trying

200-500% 0.2 to 0.6 pixels edge sharpening

and 12% at 20-30 pixels for local enhancement

Bart has added his use of 6 % and 69 pixels which is remarkable. Search here for Bart Van Der wolfe and Nicolas Claris on sharpening.

can you give me some tips on how to sharpen the middle part?

Derek,

I don't think you can or should sharpen the soft junction of the incoming waves and water spray over the sand. That's a good effect. Next time, reduce the f stop to 5.6 to f 8.0 an then increase the shutter speed until the waves are sharp!

Asher

 

[Derek Cantillan]

on that photo, i use manfrotto 055x prob with giottos mh 1300
d90 with 11-16mm + b+w nd110 + lee .9se ndg

exif
manual exposure
exposure time : 60sec
time : 11:55am
f/16

raw pp
clarity : 100
vibrance : 30
saturation : 10
sharpening : 100
radius : 3.0
details : 100
masking : 0

photoshop pp
adjust levels
usm : 100, 3, 0


thank you guys

 

[Asher Kelman]

on that photo, i use manfrotto 055x prob with giottos mh 1300
d90 with 11-16mm + b+w nd110 + lee .9se ndg

exif
manual exposure
exposure time : 60sec
time : 11:55am
f/16

raw pp
clarity : 100
vibrance : 30
saturation : 10
sharpening : 100
radius : 3.0
details : 100
masking : 0

photoshop pp
adjust levels
usm : 100, 3, 0


thank you guys

Hi Derek,

You have used a good tripod, great camera and lens! 60seconds will give the soft water effect that folk seem to like nowadays. Interesting to see pictures of water with different methods. I like fast shutter to catch the waves as in surf riding. The power can only be seen that way. With a scanning back Jim Collum has the waves going backwards but very sharp. I recognize that I'm in the minority in not going for creamy waterfalls, LOL. Here however, the esthetics are on your side and the effect is splendid. It so reminds me of the french impressionists with the soft bars of color.

O.K. so you set things up perfectly it seems, but how could one do better? You are using an f stop of 16. This is way too small to get the sharpest images. The picture starts to degrade as one uses a progressively smaller aperture and roughly speaking it's about 5.6 beyond which you are stepping into the unknown! If you must have DOF increase, go to f8. I one went to f11! That's an amazing exception. To get less light I'll use a ND filter. But when you stop down, the image sharpness suffers. search on Bart Van der Wolf in OPF for the relationship between f stop and diffraction.

For sure, one can play with sharpening and vibrance but you cannot match what you get by having the lens open up a little.

If you want to use f11 or f 16 then get a LF camera and film! Hey, you can use f22 then!

I still enjoy you picture! With all the effort to make the rock sharp it then seems as if it doesn't really belong there. If you have the time and can reshoot it with an ND filter to cut the light needed for your slow shutter speed you will be way ahead. You might even consider a polarizing filter too. That could really clarify the bands of color as the water is mixed with sand and also light is refracted and reflected. I do hope you will go back for more!

Asher

 

[Derek Cantillan]

Hi Derek,

You have used a good tripod, great camera and lens! 60seconds will give the soft water effect that folk seem to like nowadays. Interesting to see pictures of water with different methods. I like fast shutter to catch the waves as in surf riding. The power can only be seen that way. With a scanning back Jim Collum has the waves going backwards but very sharp. I recognize that I'm in the minority in not going for creamy waterfalls, LOL. Here however, the esthetics are on your side and the effect is splendid. It so reminds me of the french impressionists with the soft bars of color.

O.K. so you set things up perfectly it seems, but how could one do better? You are using an f stop of 16. This is way too small to get the sharpest images. The picture starts to degrade as one uses a progressively smaller aperture and roughly speaking it's about 5.6 beyond which you are stepping into the unknown! If you must have DOF increase, go to f8. I one went to f11! That's an amazing exception. To get less light I'll use a ND filter. But when you stop down, the image sharpness suffers. search on Bart Van der Wolf in OPF for the relationship between f stop and diffraction.

For sure, one can play with sharpening and vibrance but you cannot match what you get by having the lens open up a little.

If you want to use f11 or f 16 then get a LF camera and film! Hey, you can use f22 then!

I still enjoy you picture! With all the effort to make the rock sharp it then seems as if it doesn't really belong there. If you have the time and can reshoot it with an ND filter to cut the light needed for your slow shutter speed you will be way ahead. You might even consider a polarizing filter too. That could really clarify the bands of color as the water is mixed with sand and also light is refracted and reflected. I do hope you will go back for more!

Asher

thank you sir, thank you for the tip
and to those who replied thank you guys
yep i have a b+w cpl

 

[Winston Mitchell]

Derek,
See my comments within the quote.

on that photo, i use manfrotto 055x prob with giottos mh 1300
d90 with 11-16mm + b+w nd110 + lee .9se ndg

exif
manual exposure
exposure time : 60sec
time : 11:55am
f/16

raw pp
clarity : 100
Clarity can be dangerous when over applied. In this case is has created a broad,light halo around the rock which has disconnected it from the sand.
vibrance : 30
saturation : 10
sharpening : 100
radius : 3.0
details : 100
masking : 0
That's a lot of sharpening!

photoshop pp
adjust levels
usm : 100, 3, 0
You did it twice?

This is incomplete.
Where is the size reduction?
thank you guys