Stary Beach Night

[Kjar]

I'm not sure how I feel about this picture I took. I feel like the horizon is to sharp and the water is to glossed. Opinions?

The picture was taken at night with a:
30 sec. exposure
ISO 100
f/2.8
24mm

(images have been compressed to smaller size for upload)

I am more satisfied with this one:

But the horizon still feels too sharp to me and the sand has a bit of noise.

THANKS for dropping in!

 

[PropilotBW]

Nice long exposure, but I'd hardly call it "night"

 

[Kjar]

Nice long exposure, but I'd hardly call it "night"

I wasn't sure what to call it. It was shot at night, but with that much light its hard to tell.

 

[Tim Tucker]

But the horizon still feels too sharp to me and the sand has a bit of noise.

I'm not really understanding the statement here, as you seem to be asking for aesthetic perfection while complaining of technical perfection and offering a size of image where nobody can judge either.

 

[Kjar]

But the horizon still feels too sharp to me and the sand has a bit of noise.

I'm not really understanding the statement here, as you seem to be asking for aesthetic perfection while complaining of technical perfection and offering a size of image where nobody can judge either.

Am I just being to critical? I can't upload the full size because of the limits. This was my first real attempt at long exposures and I really don't what the "norm" is.

 

[Tim Tucker]

1600 pixels on the longest side should be sufficient for people to judge, and there's no harm in being critical of your own work. Just be aware that something that you see when viewing the original at 100% is not necessarily obvious to others with a 640x480 re-size.

 

[Designer]

My OPINION is; why do you think the horizon is "too sharp"? Is it supposed to be fuzzy?

IMO (further) you're stressing about some relatively trivial aspects of your photographs, when you could just as well be stressing about the composition or the light for instance.

 

[Kjar]

Alright, I guess I was being a little to critical. I'll accept their decency.

For anyone that cares, here is the imgr link to see their full size:
Sky

 

[spiralout462]

I like the first on better if for nothing more than somewhat of a subject on the right side. The second one just seems to be lacking something to "look at" for lack of a better word.

 

[ak_]

Looks like you achieved what you set out to do. A surreal, starlit vista of sky, ocean and earth. What do you like about the images? The colors are beautiful. Square crops of one or both could work well. You've used technical ability to create a stage for something - next step is to put someone/something in it. Here's something you could do: get a digital projector; in a dark empty room have someone stand/model for you and project this onto their body (and a wall behind them).

 

[Kjar]

Here's something you could do: get a digital projector; in a dark empty room have someone stand/model for you and project this onto their body (and a wall behind them).

Whoa, that would be awesome! I'm just an amateur though and have no capabilites of doing this.

 

[spiralout462]

Many "amateurs" are much more capable than some "professionals". Unfortunately you don't have to be a great photographer to sell pictures and call yourself a pro. Be proud of being an amateur and don't sell yourself short.

 

[rexbobcat]

My OPINION is; why do you think the horizon is "too sharp"? Is it supposed to be fuzzy?

IMO (further) you're stressing about some relatively trivial aspects of your photographs, when you could just as well be stressing about the composition or the light for instance.

I think maybe they're talking about that aliased false-detail look that contrasted edges get when oversharpened. Even a horizon isn't a straight line of pixels, so it can suffer from it much like any other area of contrast.


However, if you sharpened so much that it became noticeable, it would also be noticeable in other parts of the image, and that doesn't appear to be the case here.