Water: long or short exposure?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
jkjond
jkjond Veteran Member • Posts: 9,946
Re: Water: long or short exposure?
2

As displayed, the first is grabbing me more. I'm wanting to like the LE more than I do, but it isn't drawing me in. The biggest problem with the LE is timing - the sky shapes and surf of the foreground rocks being much more interesting in the first.

I think they both need a lot more processing.

Much as I like the sky shapes in the first it feels too tightly cropped at the top. There's a frustrating incompleteness to the gap in the clouds as it runs off into the frame. Processing isn't going to change that directly, though making more of the foreground will reduce the role of the sky so make it less apparent. There's so much scrummy rich detail that you've hidden in the rocks, and the patterns in the foam flowing over the outcrop is underplayed.

The LE, the sky isn't that interesting when compared to the first, which is a huge loss. But there is a lot of detail to be had in the foreground. As with the first shot, developing the foreground will play down the role of the sky and maximise the good part. It's the same with all shots, make the most of the good bits, play down the frustrations.

I don't know what your take is on reprocessing other people's work on here? I'm convinced both versions have a lot to gain, more so the long exposure, which goes some way to bridging the gap between the two. Oooh, and there's a good black and white lurking in there

-- hide signature --

Wedding and fine art photographer https://johnleechstudio.smugmug.com
You are welcome to reprocess and repost my pics on DPR.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Lan
Lan
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow