Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Which one?

  • 15-11-2018 10:46pm
    #1
    Morrisseeee
    Registered Users Posts: 5,146 ✭✭✭


    Which one do you have a preference for folks, ie. natural (fast shutter speed) or the more arty one (slow shutter speed) ?


    31962708968_1d03e7a83f_c.jpg



    45784266602_56886cf110_c.jpg


Comments

  • #2
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,164 ✭✭✭✭ED E


    Sky is too much in #2. Would love to see a composite of the top of 1 and bottom of 2.


  • #3
    Happy4all
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭Happy4all


    2nd one too fake


  • #4
    Adrian.Sadlier
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭Adrian.Sadlier


    As displayed, halo around rocks in both, more pronounced in the second. Personally, I'm not mad about MWS (milky water shots) unless they are extreme, minimalist, and soft tones.

    I think a slow but not too slow shutter speed would work better with this scene - something between 1/10! to 1/3". It would show motion and some detail.

    And an ND Grad ob the sky might help a little as well (on the camera rather than in PP).


  • #5
    Morrisseeee
    Registered Users Posts: 5,146 ✭✭✭Morrisseeee


    Cheers folks, thanks for your opinions. I haven't tried composites much, it's on the to-do list though ;) Personally I like the natural light in the first. The second has nice lighting on the rocks and the overall look & feel is probably not to everyone's taste, note: I'm experimenting with a Cokin Nuances big-stopper!


  • #6
    epiphony17
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭epiphony17


    I agree with everyone above. I think the sky in the second is a little too saturated? But personally I kind of like the 'artsy' slow shutter look on water.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,347 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Would the second one look better in black and white to kill that sky a bit?


  • #8
    Alanstrainor
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 23,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    I like the first image best. The choppy water adds a nice texture to the image, and it's a lovely composition. The sky looks a bit over blown, perhaps the highlights were pulled down too much to reveal the clouds? There's a lot of dynamic range here so perhaps it was unavoidable.


  • #9
    Mike Litoris
    Registered Users Posts: 6,002 ✭✭✭Mike Litoris


    I prefer 1. It's quite a nice shot. The slow shutter effect is overdone in the 2nd imo. I'd also crop a little from the bottom of the frame.


    As mentioned by Adrian an ND grad helps greatly. It's a must for landscape stuff.


    Also agree with awec that the 2nd could work well in B+W, maybe a dark and contrasty B+W. The light on the rocks in the foreground will give them a nice texture.


  • #10
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,347 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    You could also maybe use the brush to paint a slightly increased exposure onto the foreground rocks of the first one to get a bit more detail? Not sure if it would look better but worth a go?


  • #11
    Morrisseeee
    Registered Users Posts: 5,146 ✭✭✭Morrisseeee


    Cheers folks, when I get a chance I'll try a few edits ;) I actually used an ND grad in one shot but it didn't turn out too well, operator error maybe :eek:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement