vincetylor

Correction made! No wonder SHE followed me around then...

Here is an image my son Scott took from this location about two months before mine. He used the D2X. In fact I stole his idea you might say, since I never knew this place existed... bad Daddy!

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5051621&size=lg

 

Obviously we have much greater cave detail in his version. However, I too have some that look like this, taken much earlier in the shoot. The one I posted is actually very near the end of the end, which is perhaps why I found it to have more appeal. A darker, somewhat more dramatic capture than when everything was lit up earlier. Though I did scan one of those versions and will eventually get to editing and posting. It is a different shot altogether. I will also be sure to get back here in the summer when those turquoise waters are intense and gorgeous.

 

Richard,

 

In my opinion this image would be more appealing as a large print as long as I get enough detail in those shadows. We'll soon see. This is why the larger version looks so much better in my mind than the default smaller one, since you can see more of that detail.

 

Sales usually are consistent accross the board regardless of size unless I accidentally over-sharpened, which has happened when I first started out doing this. The larger ones then can be less appealing. Even though we sell many more smaller prints than larger, due to affordability, and ease of finding a home in one's house, we still sell quite a few large ones as well. But the main advantage of having a location sell the larger ones is because they actually capture the attention of the customer and bring them over to the entire display. In other words, the larger prints sell the smaller ones. But I do hear what you are saying; that one can get away with a few little problems with a smaller version than with a 24x36. The key is to avoid putting inferior images out at all. Sometimes we have learned this the hard way...

 

Many thanks again to all of you for sharing your thoughts. Is always helpful and always appreciated!

No the water is not like this all of the time. Not by a long shot in fact. But let me tell you; in the heart of the summer, in the middle of the day, when the sun is OUT in full force, this IS what you will see with a pair of Maui Jim's on your eyes. Is mesmerizing actually. In fact, I cannot tell you just how many times I put the gear down when finished shooting and then went in for the swim!

 

Just one of the perks of this job...

 

v

Thanks Tyler. This is still one of my favorites too. The trees are now too tall to get this again. But I have at least five really good, usable ones from this shoot carefully stored away. This being what I felt was the best for reasons described above. I was literally standing on the piperacks of my pickup with no support to get this view. Sometimes we do what we gotta do...

 

A hui hou, Vince

What Stephen said...

 

Also make sure all of your equipment is clean. Use a tripod whenever possible. Stop down as close to f/8 as you possibly can. Work an area thoroughly. I have about five rolls from this one spot. Many, I believe are better than this one. But I liked duckie and she liked me and that was that...

 

: )

Suggestions and opinions are great to hear. ALWAYS! Never hold back.

 

I worked this one for a very long time since I actually paid for the chair, umbrella and all the other travel necessities while on Oahu. Yes, I could have included more sky, could have given the umbrella more room to breathe (as mentioned above), could have moved the chair further to the right and thrown in grandmas kitchen sink if I had one... but the fact is when getting to the lightbox, you have to choose ONE to master and get printed. This was that one. (Actually this is the horizontal one, I also proofed the vertical, which is altogether different). By stepping back to include more sky, umbrella or whatever else, you begin losing the feeling of being there ON the beach in my opinion. I also remember preferring the extra element of having that slight ripple of a shore-break right in the front. It just added another element altogether, making the image just a bit more lively, a bit brighter and just a little happier.

 

But trust me, I heard ALL of the suggestions made on this one. They are catalogued! many thanks again to all of you that took the time. This is how we learn. Aloha.

Thanks for the nice compliments Tyler. The truth is that when I worked this location, for close to an hour before headed to other locations (since I do not live on this island and paying for car rental, hotel, food airfare etc... you have to move rather quickly), I shot this location with and without the foliage. I shot it from other angles further to the right. I shot it much wider than this and a little closer than what you see posted. I also bracketed the shutter speeds from as slow as I get get it down to (close to a second or two as seen here) and worked my way up to 1/60 of a second with everything in between. THEN when I finally got to editing this series I have a great assortment of images to look through. Editing can be very tedious because you are often splitting hairs trying to fine the best of the best among many that may work.

 

This formulay has almost always allowed me to find some kind of a winner when getting the gear out and shooting. Work an area as thoroughly and carefully as you possibly can. You never know just what might stand out until you get home. Thanks again.

 

Vince

Aloha Jay. I am a bit surprised to hear you forgo using a polarizer with a wide-angle lens like this. The uneven effects can be a concern in occasional blue-sky conditions, but I have never seen it a negative distraction on sunset or seascape images like this. Even with uneven blue-skies, the polarizing effects in my opinion are still worth having that issue as a trade-off, which can be dealt with satisfactorily oftentimes through Photoshop. In this case here, I believe it would have had a very positive effect reducing some of the glare and adding a little more separation and pop to the image. I'd just suggest that you try shooting a scene like this with and without the polarizer in each and every case if possible. It never hurts to have a few different looks from the same location when you finally get to the editing. Just my opinion here; but one that I have a learned from experience can really make a difference.

 

Have a good one Jay.

ALL of your comments and opinions are appreciated. Nice to see you too KW. Been a while. P-net is not quite what it used to be, though I still try to keep my hand in the pot from time to time. How have you enjoyed that new D200? Yes, this would be the living room view I've always wanted. Though I'd assume my television, computers, camera gear, scanner etc would be useless after about six months...

 

I do know that the high-end digital outfits do have better dynamic range capabilities Jay, and thus would handle many of the contrasting lighting conditions better than what film is capable of doing. Digital has other advantages as well; the obvious being no film or developing costs, instant results, more images to a memory card than to a roll of film etc. For me the greatest advantage though would be the elimination of scanning altogether. But the digital-film battle, in my mind is not as lopsided as some seem to believe. For one thing, I do own an original transparency when all is said and done. One that has been proven to be just about as colorful 50 years later if stored correctly. There is some real piece of mind knowing this. Velvia 50 is still the best film anywhere in my opinion. And Fuji plans to re-introduce this in the Spring of 2007. When I am capturing the blues and greens of the Hawaiian Islands, there is no digital outfit that I have seen yet, anywhere, which can duplicate what a beautiful slide will offer. My son uses Nikon's flagship D2X and is still blown away when he sees what my Velvia 50 transparencies look like. Contrast, wow factor, intense colors, deep shadows are all, still, as good as it gets today in Dec 2006. I also like using my wide-angle 2.8 glass (which would be fine with Cannon Mark II, but then that's still an $8,000 camera to lug around the shoreline, hikes to waterfalls, worries about leaving in your car etc), but with Nikon digital outfits there is no 2.8 super-wide angle glass. I can also scan 35mm originals up to 40x60 with VERY little compromise in image quality. Of course it takes a $47,000 scanner to do that, but since this is what I have been paying for, it does help to be able to have that capability. I can also buy an almost new F5 today for $600 on ebay. I get to use two outfits at one time when traveling to give myself the best opportunity to capture a winning image.

 

So yes, while I am quite aware that digital does have current advantages, and will only gain more advantages in time, it's not ALL in Digital's favor at this time. At least not in my opinion as of this moment. I would guess that within the next two years or sooner, I will make the jump, perhaps with the Nikon D3X or even a possible shift to Cannon if needed. But not quite yet. When I edited this image I was capable of bringing a little more detail from those shadows that what you see here. I believe the print will reflect that, though have yet to send out for that first proof.

 

I do recognize the value H.D.R.I Richard. Yet all is not so smooth when you have ANY kind of movement at all in the scene. Breezy trade-winds are a part of life here. And I would also think that such a concept would not work very well if at all with longer seascape exposures like this. I'd be curious to hear your own thoughts/experiences if any, with HDRI. (High Dynamic Range Imaging for those unfamiliar, where you take more than one image, at different densities and combine them through Photoshop or other integration software). It has its limitations and issues for sure. If you can get it done correctly in one shot with the proper use of filters then i'd rather not have to mess with all the other masking and "stuff" needed. As it is, I am already far too backed up in editing. : )

 

As for the abundance of dark space: I shot MOST of this series much closer-in than what you see here, significantly reducing the amount of darker areas. However, for some reason, INCLUSION of the top portion of the cave seemed to offer significant value to me when I took these slides to the light-box. To get in closer then, as well as minimize the darkness of the image overall, the top of the cave must go. There is just No way around that. I showed this series to my wife as well as my son (who has a pretty good eye) and both preferred this version where you get all of the cave at the expense of a greater amount of darkened areas. In fact I also believe this image is just a bit right-side heavy, but chose to leave it un-cropped, as it is anyway due to the value of having some pretty good lighting on that side. The print proofs will let me know what's next with this.

 

Hope this addresses your thoughts. Once again, I appreciate all of you taking the time. Is almost like old times over here... where's Walter....

 

A hui hou.

Rock and rollllllllll Bobby D!

 

Great stuff again.

 

It won't let me give you a 7. So, 6/6 it is then... for now.

A nice assortment of elemments in this Jay. That "new wide-angle lens" sure captured it all too. Exactly how wide is it by the way? VERY rarely do I use anything other than super wide when shooting seascapes nowadays. My only suggestion would have been to perhaps use a polarizer as well to reduce some glare. Though I've found that you may lose a little of that "wideness" when using both filters (ND and polarizer) at the same time, the results are often worth the trade-off from my experience. Just a thought. Nice stuff here!

I'm not sure about knawing your leg off Walt, but I do remember not too long after this was taken a mother seal gave one swimming tourist that got too close to her pup a bite he'll never forget, right on his back seat!

 

Where I like to go swimming almost daily is very secluded, so I often see one of these seals laying out on the beach. Is pretty neat actually. In fact I saw a young one Tuesday. They'll stick around on the same beach as long as you let them be. And legally you have no choice but to let them be since they are federally protected...

 

Thanks for the comments guys.

Thanks for the comments. I almost always use Velvia 50 Greg, as I did here. Also, I uploaded a larger view (even though it lessens the quality of the default, smaller view), to look at the foreground elements you mentioned. On my two monitors, I see a somewhat dark foreground moreso than a red one... (which was the case since this was taken just before the light left altogether). Though with the darkness and the amber colors in the sky those might somewhat reflect in the foreground to a degree too. I will look over the big file later on just to be sure. Thanks for taking the time.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Thanks.

I've been here many times. This is well composed along with a dramatic looking sky. My question is; why are the clouds reflecting on the wall WHITE, while the sky itself is dark and gray? Obviously the sky in this image is not natural. You should fix the clouds reflecting on the wall, to match what you have done to the sky for this to really work. Other that that, a nice photograph here.

Reds are popping here Walt. For me that nice patch of blue sky takes this one a few notches up. Did you have to wait to get the blue? It adds a nice element of contrast to the warmer Fall colors.

 

While it looks like you were lowballed a few times, your ratings on this are better than some have been getting.

 

Check our poor Bobby D:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5169656

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5099350

 

This place has become lowball city.

 

Always enjoy your Fall images Walter!

A total of (15) 3's and 4's were given to this image. This place has become Photo.lowballnet. Bobby, do you have a few extra beers to pass around?

 

Good stuff here.

Where is Ken Williams? This is not his image. What has Carl Root done to KW?

 

Nice stuff here Carl.

 

: )

Well look what the cat drug in. It's Bobby D! Good to see you still kicking, old timer. I like the unusual composition here. Has an abstract feel to it.

 

How do you like all those 3's and 4's Mr. B? The photo.net rating system has gone to the dogs. Or is it the rats... take your pick, I guess. Nice to see you around.

 

Peace to you and yours,

 

v

Thought it was possibly a turtle ... or a bunny with long floppy ears, (or a turtle-bunny mixed breed), or a rock with "the Beatles" mop top hairdo. Strange how the mind plays tricks on me almost every time I look at one of your images. Either that or I get involved in a discussion that makes me look bad. Do you do this intentionally?

 

Of course he does...

 

See, i'm talking to myself already.

Yep, I think choosing a name can be a major accomplishment at times. For me the difficulties are almost always with these seascapes. I could easily stick with the location names. This could be "Anahola Seascape" Or "Sunset over Kong Mountain" or something similar. The problem for me with that is I would then have a problem selling these images on other islands as well as perhaps on the mainland. With a more general, somewhat emotive kind of name, I CAN get away with selling these on other islands/locations. People on Maui generally do not want to buy photographs that were taken on Kauai, Oahu or the Big Island. And vice versa. However, by taking some of my better images and giving them these more generic names we have found we can often get away with it. This image would most likely sell as a Hawaiian seascape with the name Seaside Serenity or Seaside Glow, Pacific Mist or whatever else similar. If I put the Anahola seascape or sunset, Kong mountain or Kauai tags in the name instead, many store owners would actually object to this as would tourists since it is not from their specific island. It's a sensitive subject actually. Anyway, we've been catching on. Thanks for the suggestion Kah. Though I think "fire on water" might apply a little better to something like this one here. A hui hou.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3747615

 

 

24mm is pretty wide actually. I was guessing 28mm or even more. Yep, one of the keys for me to create better images is to do whatever it takes to get that extra edge Walter. Standing with bare feet in cold water has happened too many times to remember on the mainland. Climbing over railings, up trees, on pipe racks, using ladders etc is all part of what it takes I guess.

 

Bet that water would be cold though...

I am still not settled on a name for this for what it's worth. I changed the title to "Seaside Glow" from "Seaside Serenity". Though am back and forth. The original file name was Peaceful Calm, but am so sure that quite works here. Not a big deal at all, but if anybody has an opinion, it wouldn't hurt. Thanks to those of you that took the time to leave a comment. Aloha.