Sunset Glow

Any thoughts or comments are greatly appreciated!

My apologies to those who are tired of seeing the sunset behind this shrimp boat. The sun is in good position right now to capture this scene so I've been working it pretty much every day before the sun gets too far North. The water glow and reflections came out really neat in this shot with sunset colors on one side and the shrimp boat reflection on the other side of the marsh grass. I'm not sure why, but that's how it looked. I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments, especially for alternate compositions which I can try out over the next week or two when I return to this location. Thanks!

OOOH MYY....this is amazing tyler...love how the light brightens the boat.......beautiful well composed shot !!!

 

all my best..:--))

 

~trish~

Thanks Trish--for this and all your recent comments! I apologize I haven't been to comment on your recent shots...I'm busy studying for my medical boards. I promise I'll be back soon! Thanks for your kind words!

I think you got it here! Beautiful color and definition. The reflection is wonderful. Mesmerizing photo!

Beautiful Landscape and very impressive composition here and colrs

 

 

Wishing you all of the best my friend

Thank you guys for all the comments! I really do appreciate you taking the time to leave your thoughts and encouragement! I probably shouldn't bash my own photo while people are still reviewing and rating it, but I feel that one aspect I could have improved upon is the darkness on the left side of the shot. I actually cropped out a little bit...I'll attach the original version of this shot to this post. I know that wide angle lenses often are dark near the corners...my new Tokina usually doesn't have a problem but I think in this shot I exacerbated the corner darkness---the sun set directly behind the shrimp boat and when I took this shot, I had about 3 or 4 stops worth of ND grads on the sky and a l-o-n-g exposure (which did well smoothing the water and getting sunset reflections). However, I think the upper left corner being dark because it was so far from the fading sunset light, combined with the filters, exacerbated the dark corner effect of the wide angle lens. (do you guys agree or did I do something wrong with my filters or something? I think I was hand holding the filters so that could be the case...but I think it's probably the reasons above) Anyway, I cropped the image a bit to try to mitigate the darkness but I guess it still needs a little lightening. Thanks again for the comments...if you want to see a vertical crop of this shot, check out the comments on my "Settled for the Night II" shot. Thanks again!

Ok...I'm a moron because I just realized I posted the UNcropped version for critique! Oh well...here is the CROPPED version...I'd love to hear any thoughts or comparisons. Sorry for the confusion--no wonder the left side and top looked SO dark!

Cropped or not, still a gorgeous sunset.

Thanks Dale...I appreciate your kind words!

Tyler, I never get tired of such technical excellence. You nailed it!

Hi Tyler. Nice to see you using that Tokina. I really like the lighting on the upper water, the sky and especially on the boat itself. The darker left side is not a problem for me. This is a late sunset anyway. In my opinion the fading light adds value here, and does not detract at all. I wouild let it be.

 

What does create an issue for me here, is that the lower portion water line, with the reflection, does not have any color at all. The boat sail masts are silhoutted against a very colorful sky. Yet the reflection below SHOULD pick up most of that color as well. This does not look quite natural as we see it presented here.

 

If you used a colored filter on this image (and I have no problems with photographers doing just that), it would appear that you did not bring the filter line low enough. You can more easily get away with an issue like this, provided the foreground has NO water in it. The Water foreground however will pick up some of that sky color in the reflection. When it's missing, like this here, it can be a dead give away.

 

If you did not use a colored filter, then I am not sure why the lower water portion would be missing most all of that nice orange fire.

 

Would be curious to hear your thoughts.

 

Overall, this still has much going for it. You can even add some color down low through photoshop fairly easily.

 

Keep up the good work Tyler.

Vince--Thank you for stopping by to leave some thoughts...I'm honored and excited to have you critiquing my shot. You deserve a lot of credit for this shot--I used the Tokina you helped me pick out, the polarizer and Cokin filters you suggested, and shot from my new Manfrotto tripod! Furthermore, the biggest factor in this shot is, as we discussed in some previous conversations, I was shooting when the last bit of light was in the sky about 40 minutes after sunset. This exposure was long...I think about 25 seconds...which allowed the "camera to see more than my eye could see."

 

Now, about the coloring of the shot. I mentioned this above in my initial comment and I agree with you--it does look a bit odd not having any color in the foreground. I did a little research and reviewed my shots to figure out why. The first thing I did was reviewed my other shots surrounding this one--some with other filters and some without any filters. The truth is that in all shots there is color on the distant water but none in the foreground (even with no fitlers!). I agree it is odd, but that's how it was. Thinking about it now, I'm willing to bet the reason (at least partially) is the wide angle I was using to shoot and the angles from the lens to the different positions in the water. The foreground water is (literally) right at my feet. I don't know the physics of reflections, but from experience I feel like it is easier to see reflections a ways away from where you are standing than it is to see them right at your feet (I imagine there is something to do with the angle the light reflects off the water and thus you can see glow and reflections a distance from where you are standing but it is harder to see them when you are looking directly down on the water) I know this because sometimes I'll set my tripod up higher or lower in order to bring reflections and glow closer to me or push them further away.

 

With that said, I think my filters exacerbated the "problem." I was experimenting with my filters to try for different effects and also tone down the bright light on the dock with the shrimp boat. For this shot, I *think* I had 3 filters...121L, 121M, and 197 sunset. So, there were a combined 4 stops worth of filter on the sky (not 100% sure about the 197, but I think I had it on for this shot). You mentioned something about filter position--I don't think this could be the problem but if you feel it is I'll definitely trust your opinion. The reason I say this is 1) with my Tokina (77mm) there really isn't much room to move the P-series filters so I don't have much option for adjusting beyond a couple mm's 2) the "uncolored" part of this shot is nearly 1/3 of the composition, so I know I couldn't move the filter that much without showing the top edge and 3) in my past shots with the 197 Sunset filter the whole shot gets some "sunset" color effect regardless of where the filter is (I just pulled it out, looked at it and shot some test shots and the whole shot has color regardless of filter position, which is consistent with the colored appearance of the whole filter from top to bottom). Looking at some unfiltered shots, it is clear that the foreground water is a bit "warmer" in this shot, which is probably all the 197 had to offer the foreground. The closer I look the more I can see some *very slight* coloring on the foreground. I think the foreground was very dark so it was tough to expose it with color. Looking at my frames going from no filters to more and more filtering of the sky, it is clear that the reflection on the water increases a lot. So, I think that is also a cause of the odd appearance. In the more filtered shots the glow on the distant water is much more pronounced (it's a longer exposure and I guess that is right at the "graduated" portion of all the filters). Had I posted an unfiltered shot, it would have had the same effect with distant glow but the difference between the foreground and the distant water is not so pronounced as it is in this shot.

 

Those are my hypotheses and I'm very open to being totally wrong about any of them. I'd love to hear what thoughts you (Vince) or anyone else has on this issue. I think adding some slight color cast to the bottom of the shot in PS would improve the presentation. As much as I hate to do it because I like to stick with reality, I think this may be a rare example of a shot where the altered version is MORE "realistic" to a viewer than the real version. As I said, from where I was standing, with and without filters, there was only glow on the distant water for whatever reason but none on the foreground water. I agree wholeheartedly though--it does make my photo look a bit unrealistic (which is ironic, but true!). I'd love to hear more thoughts, if anyone has any.

Looking at the other images in the Top Photos section, seems like the only way make this better would have been to get some naked girl in the foreground. The only thing I criticeise is the reflection is very close to the edge of the frame. Also do hou have any portrait versions? They make good magazine covers.

 

Wonderful serene shot, I love the colours of the boat and the balance is just right. Excellent stuff. Did you have a look at Luminous Landscape like I recommended (Rick Lundh's post) about exposure blending?

 

All the best

 

Dave

Dave--Thanks for stopping by and leaving some thoughts...I'm thrilled to have any comments, much less kind words from a photographer like yourself. I agree about the naked girl--they do usually enhance the foreground :) (well, depending on WHICH girl it is!). I see what you are saying about the reflection and that is a good point. I think what I was trying to do was push the composition up in hopes of avoiding the horizon being dead center (as I've said before, I guess I've been scarred by the photo.netters who demolish centered pics...but I'll give it a try). Thanks for the critique...I'm going back out to shoot this scene a several more times over the next week or two so I'll be sure to try out some of the suggestions, including the portrait format.

Firstly Tyler can you provide me some shot details. The large image shows a lot of noise (which can be tamed) and some dead pixels which can be removed. Have a look at the crop below. Did you use the lowest ISO you could?

 

It is so vital to provide yourself with every choice when you are out in the field because you will have no idea what really works and what doesnt until you are back infront of the PC.

 

The crop I have chosen is more of a meduim format proportion. Notice I cropped the image with the boat on the right and not to the left. If I had the boat would have been pointing out of the picture and the pier would not have ended which would feel unbalanced, just like you noticed when you composed the original.

 

The division at the horizon you mention is not anything to worry about, think of all those montain reflections you see here regulary. The sky has coloured the water so well that the division is caused by the reed bed, this is placed just right. All I would say is remember you are not necessarily trying to get the shot composed in camera every time, if you are unsure about certain things like the rigging reflection too close to the edge, then simply compose a shot zoomed back, where this is priority and them play around with crops when you get home. Think of what you are doing as collecting data as much as photography.

 

 

 

Appreciate your detailed reply Tyler. You certainly do have a thirst for learning. This is great to see.

 

I have used the P-197 filter for years. And what you have accomplished right here, is exactly why I have used that filter at times. It is a very natural looking filter. However, I also have experience with some of the problems that can arise from using that or any colored filter. One of the filters that have caused me problems is using the P124; that is a tobacco filter. It works quite nicely when used correctly. This image here is one where it produced very satisfying results in my view.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1191583&size=md

 

However, that P124 is a SPLIT filter, where only the top half is colored while the bottom is clear. It is not designed for using when there is any kind of water on the bottom half. Doing so will in most all cases give it away, especially if there is a reflection involved, because the bottom portion will be missing the very same color that it is reflecting. I have seen this happen too many times actually with other photographers.

 

Here is an example:

 

http://www.webshots.com/g/33/647-sh/58392.html

 

 

You can easily see there is a problem with that image since the reflection -which is very clear- does not have any of the color in the sky that is in the image itself. In other words, that reflection is how the scene actually looked. The actual image then, above the reflection, was taken with a colored filter. There is no way around this fact. One simply cannot do this without getting caught by somebody with a critical eye. If you read the comments, you will see that is exactly what happened.

 

 

This is what I see happening here Tyler. What told me that a colored filter was used here to begin with was just one thing; the lower portion REFLECTION. Especially on the bottom right, where there is still plenty of light, and where you have a portion of the boat's mast in that reflection. The image itself is in a blaze of orange. The reflection of that part of the scene however is colorless. That is unnatural.

 

 

Because the P-197 is not a split colored filter (like the 124 mentioned above), but is colored throughout, if you had used that filter on the entire scene, including the bottom, then that bottom portion would have some of that color as well. What I believed happened is that you had several filters (as you already stated above), going at one time, and the 197 was not quite pushed down all the way. *IF* that filter was pushed all the way down, then that bottom portion will absolutely have some of that orange color. It's nothing to do with angles here at all Tyler, since you have already stated that you did use that filter on this scene. Regardless of the angle then, the lower portion would have some color since there is plenty of light to display that color and the *filter itself* would be the source of that color. The fact that the upper portion DOES have color, is what gives it away for me. Many people may never catch this issue. You could still use the image, just as is in fact. But a critical eye will catch this issue almost 100 percent of the time. And since this is a learning site, it's a great subject to discuss and learn about.

 

 

If you go back to this same location again, and make sure the filter is pushed all the way down, you will see that bottom portion will pick up the color from the filter.

 

 

Thanks for the nice discussion Tyler.

 

All the best, Vince

PS- For me, David's crop works very nicely. You may wish to post a smaller large view Tyler. People could download and use such a large image file for many applications today. Aloha.

Very nice. I wouldn't have noticed the split from the filter if it hadn't been brought to my attention. personally, I prefer the wide, uncropped version. it gives the light room to taper off and magnifies the broad sky. since the shrimper if facing to the left, all the space in that direction is functional to where the boat will be going. i wouldn't worry about the darker areas to the left. for me, since this is such a dramatic shot, the darker areas creates mood. the brain knows what is there without the detail being obvious. you have a great eye my friend. i very much enjoy watching your work progress. take care, J.K.

Vince, Dave, and JK--Thank you all for the comments! It is great to have reviews from such great photographers!

 

JK-I'm pleased that you like the shot and approve. It is also great to hear that you feel I'm improving. That is encouraging because sometimes I feel like I go a week or shooting without getting any post-able images. I guess the truth is I'm very critical of my own work and also, if the sunrise/set isn't good and I'm experimenting with new equipment and compositions I shouldn't expect any show stoppers. At any rate, thanks for the encouragement!

 

Dave--Boy, not a thing gets past your eye does it?!?! I kind of know what noise is theoretically but I probably wouldn't be able to see it if it slapped me in the face! And, I certainly can't pick out "dead pixels" and would have no idea how to fix them! (hopefully I'll be learning this when I embark upon my PS training in a couple weeks...I have Chris Orwig's DVD series, which I hear is good) At any rate, thank you for the comments and crop. As I said, I will be reshooting this location so I appreciate the suggestions so I can improve upon my shots next time out. Right now the way I learn and get good shots is I find a location and then go shoot it 10 different days, reviewing and critiquing my work after every trip. Back to the noise...to be honest, I screwed up this image and you called me on it--I brainfarted and shot this at ISO 800. I *always* shoot ISO 100 (unless there is a great reason I need to turn it up) but I had been out shooting some portraits for a friend and as it go darker I turned up my ISO so I could get a few shots and then I forgot to turn it back down. I guess the fortunate thing is that there are things that need improving in this shot anyway so it's not like I missed the shot of a lifetime. So, this is ISO 800 but just about every other shot I have it ISO 100 without fail. Would how I save the image and resizing have anything to do with noise or display? I know nothing about these topics (see my response to Vince below regarding the size of my posted images for more details) In case you are interested the rest of the parameters for this shot are as follows: Canon Rebel XT, Tokina 12-24mm shot at 18mm, Hoya warming polarizer, Cokin 1 AND 2 stop ND grads as well as Cokin 1 stop "Sunset" graduated filters (total of 4 graduated stops), ISO 800, Aperture priority mode set at f/11, shutter speed of 20 seconds, exposure compensation set at 0, and auto white balance. For post processing I developed the RAW file as "original image," turned up the saturation very slightly, saved it as a medium resolution JPEG, and posted it!

 

Vince--I hear what you are saying. I understand the only logical explanation is I screwed up the filter position--nothing else can account for the lack of foreground color. But, I was still a bit skeptical of that because I looked back at all my shots and regardless of how much or how little foreground water I included, there was no color (ie--there were some shots where the foreground is 2/3 of the shot and still has no color, which means I would have had to had only 1/3 of the filter covering the lens). Furthermore, if the bottom of the filter was in the shot wouldn't I most likely be able to see the filter edge? I do understand what you are saying about even if there is no natural color reflection on the foreground that the *filter itself* should color things regardless. Although this isn't a great shot, here is a good example of how the filter colors the whole image, even if it only darkens the top:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5756259

 

So, to get to the bottom of this I went out again tonight shooting this boat. The sunset wasn't very good and the reflections of the mast weren't as strong because the tide was low and lighting was sub-optimal. I shot using all my filters...I even used the 198 which, as you know, creates a much stronger coloring than the 197. What I did to make sure my filter position was sufficient is I took shots with a variety of filter positions--everything from so high that I can see the bottom edge of the filter in my picture to so low that I can see the top edge of the filter in the picture. Regardless of filter combination there is still no color in the foreground water! The tone of the water does change but it just doesn't get the sunset color. In the frames where you can see the bottom edge of the filter there is a difference above and below that line but it's just not the orange you'd expect. I'm totally baffled...even though I was skeptical, I thought I would go out tonight and come back with nice orangish foreground water but there was no such luck. I have noticed the difference between the foreground and far water gets larger as I dial up the saturation, but given that the filter colors the whole shot it still doesn't make sense. I also noticed as it gets longer and longer after sunset that the foreground water has less and less color (just after sunset it is colored every so very slightly by the filter, but still not as much as you'd expect) It is almost like the foreground water "eats" the color! Perhaps I'm still messing something up with the filters but I've tried to test it in just about every fool proof way I can come up with. It's honestly weird. I'm attaching to this thread a shot from tonight when I was experimenting, taken about the same time after sunset as the original shot that started this thread. If you have further thoughts, I'd certainly love to hear them. If you think my technique is still the problem please do not be shy to tell me--I was willing to accept that as the cause but it's hard for me to justify it when I can see the filter edge in some frames.

 

Please do not think that I am trying to argue with you--I'm always willing to accept whatever you say but there seems to be some objective evidence in this situation. I'm just trying to investigate and get to the bottom of things. I guess the bigger and more important question is can I try to add a touch of color to these photos using PS to make the coloring more even? I'm not trying to be "right," all I want to do is understand if there is something I can do differently and how to make these images as pleasing as possible.

 

Lastly, you brought up the size of my posted images...thank you for raising this concern (although I'd be flattered if someone WANTED to steal my images, I guess I wouldn't want that). When I post files I convert the RAW to a TIFF, then save it as a medium resolution JPEG that is generally 400-800kb. I have had several people tell me I need to "resize" them, which I have figured out how to do. What is a good size? Also, I thought regardless of how big it is if you saved it as a medium resolution JPEG that is only 600kb or so that it wouldn't be usable to anyone. In short, I would really appreciate some suggestions on what resolution and size JPEG to use for optimal posting (ie--showing the detail of the shot without being large enough to steal).

 

Thanks once again for all the help--I really do appreciate it!

For comparison, here is a totally unfiltered shot taken just seconds before the shot I just posted. As you can see if you compare the 2 images, the foreground water does change (it becomes sort of purple-bluish) but does not get the same orange tones of the rest of the shots. I'm puzzled...I'm open to any and all suggestions!

Ok...one more thought then I gotta get to bed...this is really bothering me because it doesn't make sense. But, tell me if this sounds logical:

 

The difference between orange color in the top and bottom of the shot gets larger as it gets darker (ie-early in the night, the sky is a more muted orange and the foreground has a slight touch of color...as it gets darker the horizon is blaze orange the foreground has less color). I also have noticed that the orange is strongest long after sunset where the light is the brightest (ie-nearest the horizon...it gets muted as you go away from the horizon in either direction)...which got me thinking that maybe you need more light to see the orange. This makes sense because if you look at the marsh grass (which is black in all photos) there is no hint of orange. I was thinking this is because it's essentially like taking a black piece of paper and coloring it orange. Is it possible that the foreground is light enough to show up and have the orange alter it's appearance, but too dark to allow the orange to show up? In other words, it's kind of like taking a grey sheet of paper and coloring it with an orange crayon...you will not get the same orange you would on white paper but you will get more change than you would on black paper.

 

If anyone has any thoughts please voice them! Once again, I'm not trying to be "right"--this is just bothering me now and I also want to understand the coloring and make sure there isn't anything I'm still doing wrong which I can correct in the future.

That's one heck of a detailed reply Tyler. I think my eyes are burning. : )

 

 

 

 

I've read your thoughts, talked it over with my son as well, and we both feel fairly (though not 100 percent), certain that there would be SOME color down low IF that filter was actually hitting that portion of the scene. Though any of your explanations could work, it just seems that we'd get some color in that area, especially to the bottom right corner. There seems to be plenty of light down there, which would allow that color to show up.

 

But whatever the case, it is correctable in my opinion. Here is a "quick-fix" version. This is also the size I'd recommend you post provided you want the large view at all. If not, then by posting 680 pixels wide, you will lose no quality at all in the default view. Though there then would be NO large view at all. If you want both the large and default smaller views, then somewhere around 850 pixels wide, at 96 DPI is what I usually post at. Though the default view suffers some from compression.

 

This is not a big enough issue to lose any sleep over. Just be sure the filter is used in ALL of the scene when you use it in the future, at least if there is water below.

 

I just noticed that this image is on the TRP first page. Congrats on that. The extra exposure you will receive does have some nice benefits.

 

Keep on shooting. Thanks for the discussion.

Vince--Thank you again. I do understand what you are saying and I agree your logic is 100% correct...it just doesn't gel with what I'm seeing in my test trials. Regardless, you are right--it is a correctable problem and a moot point so it's nothing to lose sleep over. I will be certain that my filter covers the whole lens in the future. Thanks for the tips on posting...I'll start posting things the size you recommended and slowly go back and change my other shots over to that size...not that I'm a "big whig" hanging out on the TRP page people will probably be beating down the door to steal all my pictures! (I am, of course, only teasing...I'm not the least bit serious!) Thanks for the congratulations on that--I know the ratings do not always mean a lot but it does make me feel good to get to the TRP page. And, you are 100% correct, the exposure is huge! I just need to work on making it there more often AND having more "Wow" images in my portfolio for people to view when they come to visit. With your help and my new equipment, I should be a step towards that goal.

 

You know, I have had 2 photos on the overall TRP page and 3 shots that have made it to #2 in the 24hr rankings in the Landscape category--I'm still searching for my first #1 hit! But, the funniest thing is that all 3 that made it to #2 (two of which were on overall TRP's first page) I posted for critique just because I was bored and hadn't posted anything in a while. I didn't feel that any of them (this shot included) were very good shots and I never expected them to do well. I guess it's just like you said--you can't predict ratings or marketability, especially if it's your picture. I honestly got home with this picture and was like "Shoot! I didn't get anything even worth posting!" and look--it's on TRP. I wonder how many other photos I have that I don't think are "any good" that I should be posting in place of many others in my portfolio! I'm finding that one key for me is that I need to come back and review my shots a week or so later--they look much better to me then.

 

As always, thanks so much for all the help! I do like your edited version of this shot--it appears much more natural and I'll be using it as an editing guide when I start processing this for printing. Thanks for all the wisdom and a great conversation!

I just wanted to, once again, thank everyone who has stopped to comment on this image and/or rate it. I almost didn't post this because I didn't think it was any good! (See what I know, huh?) I'm honored and humbled by the comments and ratings. I know the ratings don't always mean everything, but they do make you feel good, get you exposure, and the best part for me is that my anonymous rating nearly matches my direct ratings, which indicates to me that people really feel this shot is good and I'm not just getting high marks from my buddies (not that I would complain if I did!). I would love to hear further thoughts or comments, if people have them. Thanks to everyone who has helped get me from not knowing how to transfer images from my digital camera to TRP's 1st page in about 6 months--many of you have been nothing short of instrumental in getting me up the learning curve!

 

With that said, I still think I'm "mediocre" and want to keep improving so further help and even HARSHER critique and expectations are ENCOURAGED! I hope I've only just started up the learning curve. Even though this image has done well, I see several flaws and have multiple ideas for improving it...I will be going back to shoot this boat again the next good sunset we have so stay tuned for future images. Hopefully I can continue to improve and correct the shortcomings of this image that you see when you start getting picky. Thanks for the help and keep the critical remarks coming--I want to be held to the highest standard and accept nothing short of GREAT!