And this second one was from Sunday night off Ko Olina, the southwestern part of Oahu.
Two exposures within 10 sec of each other. I believe the sky was 1/30 and the water was 2 seconds.
Why are you worried about the sky in the first image? Is it ill?
I like both shots a lot. Yeah, I'd love to see more color in the first sky (probably that illness thing is making it look pale), and if it were me I'd boost the color. Other than that, they both have a wish-I-was-there look/feel.
At first, I was going to suggest minimizing the sky more in the first shot, since admittedly, there's little happening there. However, the amount of sky balances the amount of rocks at the bottom, making for a nicely balanced image. You might try using the "shadows/highlights" tool in Photoshop to lighten the rocks a bit more - as that would provide a little more interesting detail.
I like the geometric balance of the second image due to all the triangle shapes. The exposure on the rocks is perfect. The only thing that bothers me is that very contrasty line across the middle, caused by the very dark ocean and very bright sun. That could probably be fixed by lightening the ocean in that area to make the transition zone less of a contrast.
Brian, by my amateur eye both of the shots are nice and pleasant to look at. The sky that you seem to worry about in the first photo maybe a touch on the featureless side but I don't think it's all that uninteresting. Like Todd mentions, maybe a little more saturation above the horizon if it would agree with your vision of things. I really like the second photo. The darker water area on the horizon to the left could be lightened a bit in photoshop to bring out some more detail, but it isn't so bad as it is.
To me, these are not exactly what I would think of as a "newbie". They look pretty darned good to me.
Both look pretty darn good, Brian. I like the sky in the first one. As the others have suggested, a little more saturation might give it more impact, but it works as is. The second image is outstanding. The only thing I can think to suggest would be that a smaller aperature may have treated the sun better and possibly given you a sunstar. Not sure if that was the effect that you were going for, though. Nice work.
Good observation regarding the sun Rick. The posterization effect around the sun is typical of digital capture. Here's a case where film (remember that?) would have worked better. The digital imager simply doesn't have enough "bits" of data to reproduce all the levels of brightness. I suspect it would look better if captured and displayed in RAW format - but then our color doisplays may not reproduce it well, either!
Discussion
7 repliesThis first one is of Kaene Point I took on Sat, the most western point of Oahu. I’m little worried about the sky, but let me know what you think.
Thanks
Brian
Two exposures within 10 sec of each other. I believe the sky was 1/30 and the water was 2 seconds.
Thanks
Brian
I like both shots a lot. Yeah, I'd love to see more color in the first sky (probably that illness thing is making it look pale), and if it were me I'd boost the color. Other than that, they both have a wish-I-was-there look/feel.
At first, I was going to suggest minimizing the sky more in the first shot, since admittedly, there's little happening there. However, the amount of sky balances the amount of rocks at the bottom, making for a nicely balanced image. You might try using the "shadows/highlights" tool in Photoshop to lighten the rocks a bit more - as that would provide a little more interesting detail.
I like the geometric balance of the second image due to all the triangle shapes. The exposure on the rocks is perfect. The only thing that bothers me is that very contrasty line across the middle, caused by the very dark ocean and very bright sun. That could probably be fixed by lightening the ocean in that area to make the transition zone less of a contrast.
Good work!
Ken
To me, these are not exactly what I would think of as a "newbie". They look pretty darned good to me.
Brian
Ken