Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Hartland...

Discussion

8 replies
Posted by PhilH on September 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Hartland...
1Ds2, 20-35 @ 35, Tripod + BH1.
ISO50, 11secs @ f16, Manual exposure. 8stop ND.
Raw, conversion etc Lightroom 4.

Hi

A while since I posted, been very busy etc, recently we managed two weeks away in Devon and Cornwall, this image is a departure for me, firstly its a land/seascape and secondly its B/W...

Not my area of photography either, was hoping for a decent sunset which didn't happen plus we were there at the wrong time as the tide was on its way out early evening...

All the best

Phil
Posted by Phil Ellard on September 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Stunning location I can see why you set up there. The composition is very good as well with many lead in lines giving real depth to the image. My concern would be (and i am no expert here only really new at B&W as well), the rocks are v. dark with big shadows. I think they could do with more tonal variation in the grey. But that is all processing your original shot looks good and a fine conversion subject :toast: :toast: :toast:
Posted by David Sewell on September 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM
I think the tonal range is excellent, Phil, but somehow to me that menacing sky needs a bit more going on in the water to match it.

David
Posted by Bob Johnson on September 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM
The horizon is what strikes me as if it were the joining of two seperate pics. I like it though :wink:

Bob :smile:
Posted by Robert Lawrence on September 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I agree with Bob regarding that horizon, it just looks strange to me and once noted my eye constantly goes back to it. It's probably the effect of what David has pointed out ie: the sea is very flat and featureless. Rock foreground detail looks good though.
Posted by John Robinson on September 24, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Not a landscape man, (All I see here are trees) but looks interesting to me.
I agree the sky/sea junction does look different .
Cheers
JR
Posted by Phil Ellard on September 24, 2012 at 2:34 PM
Im not seeing an issue with the sky sea part, i can see motion blur in the clouds and i guess as well at 11secs thats what flattened the water. I like that effect myself and think it really suits the image. I don't have an issue with the FG per say just a couple of those big black shadows. But that probably is personal as they are dramatic. Maybe one of those shots that would benefit from being seen A3 so all the detail can be seen :toast: :toast: :toast:
Posted by Nick Mckeown on September 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Have to be honest Phil it doesn't really do much for me as I find my eye just wandering and not finding anything to grab it. I personally think a colour version would perhaps have had more interest to it even with a muted sky. Just my opinion.

Nick. :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :smile: :wavey:
Posted by PhilH on September 27, 2012 at 2:51 AM
Cheers for the feedback all, greatly appreciated... Nick, no worries, as said it would be a very boring place if we all liked the same things, your honesty is valued.... The colour version BTW is almost monochromatic...

This image does look better in print than it does on screen...

Phil :wavey: