# I can't quite figure out whats wrong with this>



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

It just doesn't look right. Thoughts?




Does it need something?

 Edit: Just looked at my exif: Maybe because it was shot at f/20 and it doesn't look right because of diffraction?

I may have answered my own question.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 12, 2012)

It's edited too much and ended up with a 'combed' histogram.  It also isn't very sharp.... looks like camera movement.


----------



## allison_dcp (Jul 12, 2012)

Me jumping in


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 12, 2012)

do you have an unedited version I could take a shot at?


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

Unedited version >



I doubt its camera movement it was sitting on a rock, (because I didn't have my tripod with me) and set on timer, although I don't think I had locked the mirror up.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 12, 2012)

Even the unedited version isn't very sharp.  Looks like lots of CA to boot.


----------



## PinkDoor (Jul 12, 2012)

Looks like the focus and sharpest part i is a small section of rock in the lower right (just above the obviously blurred rock).


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

Ok, its a re-shoot then. I had a limited amount of time as I was dropped of a boat onto this little Island and didn't think it through. My bad.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 12, 2012)

Nothing is essentially wrong with the picture. What matters more is whether it makes you happy.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 12, 2012)

Here's what I came up with.  Not very much different.  i guess the scene just sort of naturally lacks drama, but isn't quite soothing either.  It's in sort of a weird middle ground of normal landscape/beach shots.  




new-9131-3 by franklinrabon, on Flickr


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

You're all probably right. Back to the drawing board.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Nothing is essentially wrong with the picture. What matters more is whether it makes you happy.



I'm always happy!    :sun:


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> Here's what I came up with.  Not very much different.  i guess the scene just sort of naturally lacks drama, but isn't quite soothing either.  It's in sort of a weird middle ground of normal landscape/beach shots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for trying


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

PinkDoor said:


> Looks like the focus and sharpest part i is a small section of rock in the lower right (just above the obviously blurred rock).




Yes, your right. next time I think I'll use f/11 instead of 20! and remember to calculate the hyper focal distance. That should work.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Even the unedited version isn't very sharp.  Looks like lots of CA to boot.



Just wondering if I change the focal length, will that help?


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

allison_dcp said:


> Me jumping in




:cheers:


----------



## OscarWilde (Jul 12, 2012)

You can lessen the CA by lessening your focal length (if you were at the outer reaches of your lens) and/ or lowering your aperture a bit... 

I'm sure there are other ways but I know those two help a bit


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 12, 2012)

rokvi said:


> Yes, your right. next time I think I'll use f/11 instead of 20! and remember to calculate the hyper focal distance. That should work.



It seems you have answered your own question. That's what it looks like to me immediately, is diffraction from using a small aperture. Even the most "in focus" part of the image is not crystal clear. What were you using on this, 10 second shutter?


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> rokvi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, your right. next time I think I'll use f/11 instead of 20! and remember to calculate the hyper focal distance. That should work.
> ...



ISO 100 f/20! ( To lazy to walk back 30m for my filters) 0.4 sec.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> You can lessen the CA by lessening your focal length (if you were at the outer reaches of your lens) and/ or lowering your aperture a bit...
> 
> I'm sure there are other ways but I know those two help a bit



Fanks     :thumbsup:


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 12, 2012)

rokvi said:


> ISO 100 f/20! ( To lazy to walk back 30m for my filters) 0.4 sec.



Wow, that water must have been moving pretty rapidly. I would not have guessed less than half a second at all!


----------



## rokvi (Jul 12, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> rokvi said:
> 
> 
> > ISO 100 f/20! ( To lazy to walk back 30m for my filters) 0.4 sec.
> ...



Very!


----------

