Muddy Mississippi this morning.

[cdryden]

I was hoping to catch some nice sunrise pictures this morning but a massive fog bank came through and killed that. So I took some lemons and made some lemonade. I am a very inexperienced photographer still getting used to my gear but feel free to critique all you want.

F22, ISO 100, 20 min exposure, 10 stop B+W filter

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126239969@N08/14711793612/in/photostream/

btrocks by csdryden72, on Flickr

 

[oldhippy]

The rocks were OK. But the empty swing was really nice. You have a good eye for subjects.

 

[dvjproductions]

Commented on your flickr account. I like this, I like the settings it was shot at. The bloom across the top is a bit much, but otherwise I like it.

 

[tirediron]

I like the image well enough, but I don't understand the settings you've posted (and pull any EXIF data out of the image). It doesn't look like a 20 minute exposure, but assuming it is, why?

 

[Caymex]

i really like the rocks photo, i think that is very moody and surreal.

 

[cdryden]

I like the image well enough, but I don't understand the settings you've posted (and pull any EXIF data out of the image). It doesn't look like a 20 minute exposure, but assuming it is, why?

I wish I had a good explanation for you but honestly I don't. I am experimenting. I don't have a clue as to what I am doing but I am learning through trial and error. To show you how green I am I have no idea what EXIF data is.
The water was extremely calm this morning which was providing the motion I wanted so that I could achieve the blur effect, so I thought that if I lengthened the exposure time I could gather more motion effect. I failed. But I took away some experience and knowledge from it so it was still worthwhile for me.
I appreciate your candor though, I always prefer a unvarnished honest opinion. I know I have a lot to learn.

 

[cdryden]

i really like the rocks photo, i think that is very moody and surreal.

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. It's growing on me. I still look at it and see all the faults but I am happy with my improvement so far.

 

[cdryden]

I agree, the fog that came through was hard for me to deal with. Thanks for the comment.

 

[cdryden]

The rocks were OK. But the empty swing was really nice. You have a good eye for subjects.

Lol, you liked the swing huh?!? Me too, that was at a family get together a few weeks ago. It's not very often that I am able to make a picture turn out the way I see it in my minds eye but it's nice when it does.

 

[cdryden]

Commented on your flickr account. I like this, I like the settings it was shot at. The bloom across the top is a bit much, but otherwise I like it.

I agree, the fog that came through was hard for me to deal with. Thanks for the comment.

 

[cdryden]

I like the image well enough, but I don't understand the settings you've posted (and pull any EXIF data out of the image). It doesn't look like a 20 minute exposure, but assuming it is, why?

I wish I had a good explanation for you but honestly I don't. I am experimenting. I don't have a clue as to what I am doing but I am learning through trial and error. To show you how green I am I have no idea what EXIF data is.
The water was extremely calm this morning which was providing the motion I wanted so that I could achieve the blur effect, so I thought that if I lengthened the exposure time I could gather more motion effect. I failed. But I took away some experience and knowledge from it so it was still worthwhile for me.
I appreciate your candor though, I always prefer a unvarnished honest opinion. I know I have a lot to learn.

Okay, I educated myself a bit on Exif data and as near as I can tell it just lists the settings and other info about the file. Does this detract from image quality? Is that why you suggested I remove it?

 

[tirediron]

I like the image well enough, but I don't understand the settings you've posted (and pull any EXIF data out of the image). It doesn't look like a 20 minute exposure, but assuming it is, why?

I wish I had a good explanation for you but honestly I don't. I am experimenting. I don't have a clue as to what I am doing but I am learning through trial and error. To show you how green I am I have no idea what EXIF data is.
The water was extremely calm this morning which was providing the motion I wanted so that I could achieve the blur effect, so I thought that if I lengthened the exposure time I could gather more motion effect. I failed. But I took away some experience and knowledge from it so it was still worthwhile for me.
I appreciate your candor though, I always prefer a unvarnished honest opinion. I know I have a lot to learn.

EXIF data is the shooting information digitally embedded in your image file, it tells you date, time, location (if you have a GPS), shutter speed, aperture, lens, flash use, etc. Search "EXIF viewer" on the 'net and you will find lots of free browser plug-ins that will let you view it. Unfortunately, a lot of websites and processing programs strp so or all of the data away.

I've done a lot of water shooting, and I've NEVER seen water in any body larger than a big puddle that was so still that after 20 minutes you could still see rocks at the bottom. VERY impressive, and your theory was correct, but if the water was that still, there was no getting around it.

 

[cdryden]

It was like a mill pond. I am going to try and shoot the same location on windy day to see if that will help. Here is a pic of the area where I took the photo from. The water I photographed was in the cove and protected somewhat from the current of the main body of the river, but it wouldn't have made much difference. The river was moving but was still very flat.