Washed Ashore

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Washed Ashore by Majeed Badizadegan (Rotanimod), on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

I like this picture. It has simple, strong composition.

 

[LaFoto]

Yes, well, what else can be said? Derrel has said it all! Nothing to add to his words. Good photography!

 

[KenC]

I'm not sure what washed up, but I agree this is a good composition with nice tonal range and contrast. I think I see a little haloing between the sky and the rocks.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Thanks all.

I see what you're saying KenC, could be a result of a new sharpening method I was trying in CS5. Smart Sharpen @ 180%, 0.8 pixels.

Not entirely sure, I'll have to backtrack a bit to see if I can figure out what caused it.

 

[sleist]

I think this is a nice shot for the reasons stated, but I feel like something is missing. The object that's washed up is not identifiable and I want to remove it. But that doesn't work because then the balance of the composition is lost. I guess I just want that black thing to be a cool piece of driftwood or something. Because I don't know what it is, I get this feeling like the photo has no subject. I know you can't change that, but it keeps this shot from being a really strong one for me.

Very subjective, I know. Otherwise well done. Perhaps slightly tilted (sorry ) but correcting would move the "thing" too close to the edge. I'll go take some meds and try to ignore it.

 

[sleist]

Thanks all.

I see what you're saying KenC, could be a result of a new sharpening method I was trying in CS5. Smart Sharpen @ 180%, 0.8 pixels.

Not entirely sure, I'll have to backtrack a bit to see if I can figure out what caused it.

Better to do something like 2 passes at 90 or 3 passes at 60. 180 seems a bit high even for .8.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

I think this is a nice shot for the reasons stated, but I feel like something is missing. The object that's washed up is not identifiable and I want to remove it. But that doesn't work because then the balance of the composition is lost. I guess I just want that black thing to be a cool piece of driftwood or something. Because I don't know what it is, I get this feeling like the photo has no subject. I know you can't change that, but it keeps this shot from being a really strong one for me.

Very subjective, I know. Otherwise well done. Perhaps slightly tilted (sorry ) but correcting would move the "thing" too close to the edge. I'll go take some meds and try to ignore it.

It's interesting because in Oregon this is something we are VERY used to seeing. It's a common type of seaweed here. I did not take into account that it's not common elsewhere, I had somebody else asking what it was too.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Oh I was going to ask you Sleist, where are you seeing the image is not level? What are you using as the point of reference for that? I'm having a hard time seeing that. Thanks for the other feedback about the sharpening too. It's the first time I've ever tried it.

 

[sleist]

I think this is a nice shot for the reasons stated, but I feel like something is missing. The object that's washed up is not identifiable and I want to remove it. But that doesn't work because then the balance of the composition is lost. I guess I just want that black thing to be a cool piece of driftwood or something. Because I don't know what it is, I get this feeling like the photo has no subject. I know you can't change that, but it keeps this shot from being a really strong one for me.

Very subjective, I know. Otherwise well done. Perhaps slightly tilted (sorry ) but correcting would move the "thing" too close to the edge. I'll go take some meds and try to ignore it.

It's interesting because in Oregon this is something we are VERY used to seeing. It's a common type of seaweed here. I did not take into account that it's not common elsewhere, I had somebody else asking what it was too.

Looks like a giant, black spermatozoa ....

 

[sleist]

Oh I was going to ask you Sleist, where are you seeing the image is not level? What are you using as the point of reference for that? I'm having a hard time seeing that. Thanks for the other feedback about the sharpening too. It's the first time I've ever tried it.

You know, I downloaded the pic and used a line along the white, foam bordering the far shore and it looked tilted the other way . I think it may be distortion rather than tilt. I'll see if I can get my edit to agree with my brain ...
I use smart sharpen often on 64bit tiffs, but I use between 30 and 60 with a 1.0 - 1.3 radius. I'm happy with 40 and 1.1 ant the moment. I'll occasionally use unsharp mask using 2-5% for amount and 50 for radius, but that's more of a local contrast effect than sharpening. I actually do some sharpening to the RAW image in Capture NX2 which is contrary to theory that sharpening should be done last (I think that is more for output based sharpening though). I sharpen the RAW image slightly and convert to TIFF which gets me very crisp effects and no artifacts. It also allows be to use less sharpening later when the chance for artifacts might be higher.

 

[Trever1t]

it's Kelp, very prominent type of vegetation all along the pacific coasts.

 

[cgipson1]

Very nice, Majeed!

 

[sleist]

Here's my straightening attempt. I used a combination of distortion correction (+10%) and leveling (-.75) in Capture NX2.

Enough OCD for tonight I think.

 

[Atari1977]

I think it's a tad underexposed, other then that though it's a pretty good picture.