1st long exposure

[chrisfoxdesign]

Pescadero State Beach, California. I think I need a stopper so I can shoot these when there is more light, and a graduated neutral density filter (which I have, but was distracted w/my kids) to get the right effect. And I need to explore the area more for better composition. 30 seconds.



Rocks & Ocean, Pescadero State Beach, by chrisfoxdesign on Flickr

 

[Heitz]

how long was the exposure?

 

[o hey tyler]

how long was the exposure?

My money is on 30 seconds.

 

[chrisfoxdesign]

Tyler wins.

 

[ceeboy14]

My nit with this one and it has to do with 30 seconds, is the foreground rocks having such great clarity in detail and the rocks just past them having so little...it doesn't read "natural" to me.

 

[chrisfoxdesign]

Interesting, one thing I don't want people to feel looking at my photos is "not natural". I get cringes of over-processed HDR which I personally don't care for (not that there isn't some great, subtle use of that technique).

How does the 30 second exposure account for that? I was trying to totally blur out the water (not quite there but close) and that's as long an exposure as I could get on my camera (EOS 6D). The other rocks were occasionally covered with water during that exposure, and there was almost no light at the time. I wonder if I might get better results from using a stopping filter with a graduated neutral density to block out some of the sky light, so I can shoot when there's more natural light hitting the scene.

The other thing is that the rocks I was standing on were simply different in nature than the mussel covered rocks a few feet away. Thanks for any further thoughts.

 

[hydroshock]

i like it, compositionally(not sure thats a word) it doesn't seem far off but I see what you mean. A remote timer would give you more exposure time, I'm used to a release cable but I shoot more film now than digital. More light would be a challenge to get more exposure time unless you could get maybe f32 with more sunlight plus might make background rocks sharper but even then if there's water moving over them you can't really help that. On the digital side that's be great if you could just get rid of the 30 second cap.

 

[lassa8]

that's as long an exposure as I could get on my camera (EOS 6D).

If you have a shutter release cable you can set the shutter time to 'bulb' and lock the shutter down for as long as you like.

 

[hydroshock]

i'd like to see it in B&W, but that's just me. It feels like it would be more dramatic. You were able to capture details in the darkest part of the exposure so the range looks great.

 

[chrisfoxdesign]

Sure, here's a conversion.

 

[ceeboy14]

The B&W works much better for me. My thoughts on the 30 seconds was assuming there was more light in the foreground area, thus a brighter lighting. I wonder if the exposure isn't too long for "water." At this point, it looks far more like seeping fog. Don't get me wrong as I like the effect, just would perhaps like to see more of a graduated level from water-ish to fog-ish.

Invest in a Lee GND set and let the fun begin. Get a .6, .9 and if you can afford it, the BIG STOPPER.

 

[chrisfoxdesign]

Thanks very much for the feedback. Was definitely going for fog, but the problem I think is that when that really works, the rest of the composition needs to lend itself to abstraction. I think this really works: Minimal Bexhill ! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I have several in the shoot which read more as water.

 

[afoto]

personally I really like the rocks in the very back that look like they have the "fog" around them.
(ps. I just did a post on the filter I use on my long exposure website: My filters | Abbye Dahl it might help?)

 

[chrisfoxdesign]

Thanks Abbye, really like your work!

 

[batmura]

Good work. The B&W conversion worked really well for the first image, though I do feel the rocks in the foreground occupy too much space. Compared to your first picture, the second is a better composition, IMO. Thanks for sharing!