# Looking Off Fleetwood Beach



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 4, 2007)

I know where I think this could be improved, but I'd be interested in what others think...


----------



## Alpha (Jul 4, 2007)

I think it's rather nice. I'll leave all the going ape-shxt over technical details to the rest of the crew.


----------



## Sweetsomedays (Jul 4, 2007)

I love this. I even love your post of it in color  I didn't see it in the color pic but I do in the B&W, the little ripple in the water. Only thing I don't like is that pole thingy.


----------



## Peanuts (Jul 4, 2007)

The gradation of tones from the lower right hand corner to the upper left is fantastic! Nicely spotted


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 5, 2007)

Thanks for the positive comments. I'd actually written this shot off when I took it back in May, as it didn't really match up to the visualisation I had of it when I pressed the shutter button. It was only as a result of looking through an old magazine last night, and an article on B+W conversions that it came to mind again. 

I actually like the pole, as it provides a visual full stop at the end of the breakwater where the eye is being lead - it almost becomes the subject of the shot. I would have preferred that I could have got a little more DOF to sharpen it up a bit, but the sun was setting and a tripod wasn't an option as I was crouched in soft sand/mud already (not a firm foundation). Looking at the shot now, I think a slightly higher view point would have been better, as it would have given the distant land above the breakwater a little more prominence - from where the shot was taken, you're looking across Morecambe Bay to the Lake District. I think it would also have been better to frame things in such a way that the horizon wasn't quite so central. Oh and I didn't notice the dripping water until I looked at the shot on the PC.


----------



## abraxas (Jul 5, 2007)

I like the combination between the natural and manmade elements of the shot. Almost illusionary too.  The centered horizon is cool by me as you have so much under it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 5, 2007)

I think I like it better in color even though I'm a black and white kinda guy.  Has to do with the seperation of the elements.  There is a blending effect in the black an white version.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 5, 2007)

Try this






Your original shot leads the eye out of the frame left, which is not the best thing to do. Reversing the image gets the diagonals pushing the eye into frame and makes it work for you.
It also makes the tonal gradation in the sky work for you.
An improvement? Si?


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Jul 5, 2007)

Am I backwards?  I prefer images that lead right to left! 

Chris, I agree a higher viewpoint could give you more water & less sky but how much reflection would you lose?

Maybe try the opposite way with a lower viewpoint?

Nice shot though even with the centered horizon! :thumbup:


----------



## PNA (Jul 5, 2007)

It a good shot as is.....


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 5, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Your original shot leads the eye out of the frame left, which is not the best thing to do.


 
I've spent too long in Saudi I think - right to left works just fine for me 



Hertz van Rental said:


> Reversing the image gets the diagonals pushing the eye into frame and makes it work for you.
> It also makes the tonal gradation in the sky work for you.
> An improvement? Si?


 
Actually it had crossed my mind that it would be better leading in the opposite direction, I just couldn't get my head round Heysham Power Station being where it's now sitting - that's the two little pale squarish blobs just above the breakwater (right on the original, left of HvR's flip)

Right I'm going to try another approach to this based on the article that first made me resurrect the shot. Another version coming up soonish, or maybe even tomorrow.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 5, 2007)

PlasticSpanner said:


> Chris, I agree a higher viewpoint could give you more water & less sky but how much reflection would you lose?


 
Probably not all that much. I was only thinking of lifting up around 6" so that the land on the horizon just cleared the breakwater and no more. A slight downward tilt, and I think you've got all the reflection you need. One to try when I'm back home in late August.

Thanks to everyone for all the ideas and suggestions.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 5, 2007)

A bit like this...






It's still not quite as I'd like, too much image degradation along the way I think. I'd be interested to know what you make of it now though.


----------



## abraxas (Jul 5, 2007)

Sky is much better.  Seems to have taken care of something that was going on with the ripple too.

Interesting theory on the left-right thing.

How's upside down look? Too abstract?


----------



## abraxas (Jul 5, 2007)

abraxas said:


> ...
> 
> How's upside down look? Too abstract?



whoa, that's cool- try left to right AND upside down!


----------



## gtkelly (Jul 5, 2007)

I like the sky in the last one much better. I'm not sure why but the left to right flip looks more 'settled' to me. 

I just flipped on of my own that went right-> left and I like it much better. Is there a general rule here?


----------



## silver163 (Jul 5, 2007)

how did you manage to get such a clean b&w conversion?


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 6, 2007)

I've always found that straight b&w conversions (Ctrl + shift + U) come out very flat and lack contrast.

So, for the first version I used the channel mixer (tick the monochrome box in the bottom left corner), then I played around with the colour sliders to get a pleasing effect. Following that I used the contrast/brightness tool and finally used the sharpen filter. Probably no more than 5 minutes work at most.

The second version was rather more labour intensive. Start off with two copies of the image. Using the channel mixer and contrast/brightness tools (not the filter at this point), I converted each to monochrome, then adjusted one image to get a sky I was happy with and the other to do the same with the foreground.

The two image were then layered over each other and a gradient was used to blend between the good foreground and good sky. After that, it was just a case of using the dodge and burn tools to tweak the image into what you see now. The last step was to use the sharpen filter. Overall, that one probably took 20-30 minutes. The magazine I got the step by step from (Dec 06 - Digital Photo) reckons it's possible in 15 minutes, but this was the first time I'd tried it the method so I was a little slow whilst I found all the tools.

Hopefully no one gets the idea that I'm some sort of PS whizz, I'm not. All I've done here is follow a set of tutorials from a magazine. I did once used to do a lot of real b&w stuff in a darkroom, so I guess I understand the theory behind what I'm trying to achieve using PS. For a first attempt using the second method, I quite pleased with the end result, though looking at the full sized image I was working on, I can quite easily demonstrate the more ham fisted moments.


----------



## Proteus617 (Jul 6, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Your original shot leads the eye out of the frame left, which is not the best thing to do. Reversing the image gets the diagonals pushing the eye into frame and makes it work for you.




I've noticed that some compositions work better when flipped (this one included) but I have no idea why. Anyone  care to elaborate further?


----------

