# Mavericks Invitational 2014



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

The whole experience of getting to cover this event was surreal. I woke up Friday morning expecting to go sit on the beach and take some photos, and I ended up a mile out at sea with professional photographers shooting it up close. If not only for the experience, I love these shots to death. I'd love some feedback, C&C is appreciated.

#1



Mavericks 2014 by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

#2



Massive by theofficialtevo, on Flickr


#3



Race by theofficialtevo, on Flickr


The rest of the set is here.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

Oh, MAN, I've been waiting to see what you were able to get... and wow...these are pretty solid!!!!!!! Man, I would have give my left *** to have been at that event...

So, what did you shoot these with? These look pretty high-quality! Let me guess....18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom, right? ;-)

Man, the third shot, witn the three surfers, just blows me away!


----------



## Brand000n (Jan 27, 2014)

I love that first shot.

The subject in the second one is on the small side so you lose some detail but then again you caught the whole wave so it's still a nice photo


----------



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Oh, MAN, I've been waiting to see what you were able to get... and wow...these are pretty solid!!!!!!! Man, I would have give my left *** to have been at that event...
> 
> So, what did you shoot these with? These look pretty high-quality! Let me guess....18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom, right? ;-)
> 
> Man, the third shot, witn the three surfers, just blows me away!



A slight upgrade from the kit lens, I used a 300 2.8 with a 1.4x TC


----------



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

Brand000n said:


> I love that first shot.
> 
> The subject in the second one is on the small side so you lose some detail but then again you caught the whole wave so it's still a nice photo



That was my favorite as well. I've actually had a few people ask me for a signed print of it; the first photo I've had people want prints of. Personal victory for tevo.


----------



## Rags (Jan 27, 2014)

Nice stuff...

The shots look a little blown on my monitor 

Shooting that event is a great day - I've shot it from a boat twice & got sick twice...

Rags


----------



## leeroix (Jan 27, 2014)

Dude. Awesome!


----------



## ronlane (Jan 27, 2014)

Nice set, dude. Waves and photos, lol.


----------



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

Rags said:


> Nice stuff...
> 
> The shots look a little blown on my monitor
> 
> ...



I know your pain. This was my first time out on the ocean, and I did not take dramamine. It was certainly a battle to not throw up.... thankfully I was victorious. 



leeroix said:


> Dude. Awesome!



Thanks!


----------



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Nice set, dude. Waves and photos, lol.



Waves evidently make taking photos a lot harder... not even Nikon's acclaimed VRII could help much.


----------



## Rags (Jan 27, 2014)

Glad you won the upchuck battle...

You might like to avoid using VR next time... shooting faster than 500; it's not effective and can slow you while hunting

You're in San Jose so you might like the Oneill Coldwater surf contest in Santa Cruz at Steamers in the fall - (morning shoot)

Up the coast a bit there is great kite/wind surfing at Waddel Creek (after 3pm shoot) 


Rags


----------



## leeroix (Jan 27, 2014)

I was watching it live on sfgate. I was surprised the waves weren't bigger considering the swell in Hawaii earlier... The lip was still pretty fat, reminded me of Teahupoo. Wish I could have taken the day off to make it out there. Oh well... next year


----------



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

Rags said:


> Glad you won the upchuck battle...
> 
> You might like to avoid using VR next time... shooting faster than 500; it's not effective and can slow you while hunting
> 
> ...



Well I had my D7000 with the VRII on it, but I didn't even end up using that. My 300mm doesn't have VR so I was just shooting a fast shutter.


----------



## tevo (Jan 27, 2014)

leeroix said:


> I was watching it live on sfgate. I was surprised the waves weren't bigger considering the swell in Hawaii earlier... The lip was still pretty fat, reminded me of Teahupoo. Wish I could have taken the day off to make it out there. Oh well... next year




Do it! I'm super glad I decided to skip class that day lol


----------



## tevo (Jan 29, 2014)

How could I go about enlarging these to preserve enough detail for a large print?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 29, 2014)

tevo said:


> How could I go about enlarging these to preserve enough detail for a large print?



A good printer in a commercial lab will have a RIP or Raster Image Processor that should easily be able to "up-rezz" these images, and maintain plenty of detail. I would talk to your lab about how you can best way to process the files. 

Anyway, these are not really "high-detail" scenes...there is a lot of fairly broad, smooth, jade-green water, the boards and wetsuits are basically smooth, made of material that actually is rather-limited detail, smooth surfaces...seen at what is scientifically called *appropriate viewing distance*, large prints will "look plenty sharp", so, if you do a 3 x 4 foot print, and it is seen from 10 feet let's just say, it is going to look SHARP! to the eye....but if you lay a 10x Schneider loupe on a small section of the scene from 1/2 and inch away, you'll see, at 10x magny, that ,"Hey this is not critically sharp!"

Once again, some really NICE images tevo!


----------



## leeroix (Jan 29, 2014)

Well, how big is the file size? Specifically the image size? Depending on how large you wish to print, there is a "viewing distance" Billboards are printed at extremely low res because you are hundreds of feet away and moving at 60mph. -Up close, they look like sheet. For a wall hanger, I would recommend 300 dpi at full size. We print on a large format Vutek all day long at 150 dpi and it looks fine. -300 will get you the detail your after.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 29, 2014)

Very nice, but went to look at the others did you only get 6 shots ?

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ORourkeK (Jan 29, 2014)

Wow amazing shots. I have never seen waves like these in person. We have small waves here on the East Coast.


----------



## tevo (Jan 29, 2014)

leeroix said:


> Well, how big is the file size? Specifically the image size? Depending on how large you wish to print, there is a "viewing distance" Billboards are printed at extremely low res because you are hundreds of feet away and moving at 60mph. -Up close, they look like sheet. For a wall hanger, I would recommend 300 dpi at full size. We print on a large format Vutek all day long at 150 dpi and it looks fine. -300 will get you the detail your after.




The current size of the .jpg is 1767x1176 for the one I want to have printed.  As far as size, I have one person who wants a very large print made, several feet wide. I'd be happy if I could get a 24x36 made.



gsgary said:


> Very nice, but went to look at the others did you only get 6 shots ?
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



These were the 6 that came out best. I would have taken loads more photos as well as used my 2x tele more efficiently, but it was my first time out on the ocean and I neglected to take dramamine. I was trying very hard not to get seasick, while also trying to position myself among 30 other photographers to get a good angle. Not as plentiful of a return as I would have liked, but there's always next time.


----------



## tevo (Jan 29, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> Wow amazing shots. I have never seen waves like these in person. We have small waves here on the East Coast.



Thanks! I had never seen these size of waves either, nor had I been on a boat on the ocean before. It was certainly an interesting first experience.


----------



## jfrabat (Jan 30, 2014)

tevo said:


> #1
> 
> 
> 
> Mavericks 2014 by theofficialtevo, on Flickr



Nominated for Photo of the Month...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 30, 2014)

tevo said:


> leeroix said:
> 
> 
> > Well, how big is the file size? Specifically the image size? Depending on how large you wish to print, there is a "viewing distance" Billboards are printed at extremely low res because you are hundreds of feet away and moving at 60mph. -Up close, they look like sheet. For a wall hanger, I would recommend 300 dpi at full size. We print on a large format Vutek all day long at 150 dpi and it looks fine. -300 will get you the detail your after.
> ...



Go back to the others i sometimes dismiss shots and when i go back i see something i didnt see first time

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## leeroix (Jan 30, 2014)

Did you shoot these RAW? or is that the jpeg size specified in camera? 1767x1176 is not very big... at 300dpi its a little over 5 inches... However, there are various ways to blow it up, and unless your nose is on it, it may look fine. Do you own photoshop?


----------



## tevo (Jan 30, 2014)

leeroix said:


> Did you shoot these RAW? or is that the jpeg size specified in camera? 1767x1176 is not very big... at 300dpi its a little over 5 inches... However, there are various ways to blow it up, and unless your nose is on it, it may look fine. Do you own photoshop?



RAW 12mp with crop. I do own Photoshop!


----------



## KmH (Jan 30, 2014)

tevo said:


> The current size of the .jpg is 1767x1176 for the one I want to have printed.  As far as size, I have one person who wants a very large print made, several feet wide. I'd be happy if I could get a 24x36 made.


Apply the basic math, but I wonder? Why do the photographs only have 2.08 MP of resolution? Heavy crop?

1767 px / 36 inches (3 feet) = 49 ppi - You will have difficulty finding a lab of any kind that will print at that low a print resolution.  (PPI defines print resolution (size). Image pixel dimensions define image resolution (size)).
Most print labs have a minimum  print resolution requirement of about 100 ppi.

At 100 PPI a 1767 x 1176 pixel photo would be a 17.67 x 11.76 inch print. The closest standard print size would be a 15x10 @ 117.8 PPI
At 200 PPI a 1767 x 1176 pixel photo would be a 8.835 x 5,88 inch print.
At 300 PPI a 1767 x 1176 pixel photo would be a 6.89 x 3.92 inch print.

When an image has it's resolution increased by software, the software creates pixels by one of several interpolation algorithms that make artificial pixels based on the real pixels in the photo.
consequently, thee are limits to how much a digital photograph can have it's resolution increased before it starts to look strange.


----------



## leeroix (Jan 30, 2014)

^this. 
Did you scale the image down?


----------



## tevo (Jan 30, 2014)

leeroix said:


> ^this.
> Did you scale the image down?



No, it is just a crop from a 12mp file. Heavy crop unfortunately.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 30, 2014)

Outstanding series of images.


----------



## Rags (Jan 30, 2014)

Yeah, shooting with a D700 is too wide a FOV, hence the value of a DX cam

Rags


----------



## tevo (Jan 30, 2014)

Well guys, I found a program called Perfect Resize, and for shts and giggles I set in the original dimensions of a 12MP file and let it do its magic. The result:







Link: http://i.imgur.com/LVKiFfL.jpg

Not too shabby....


----------



## tevo (Jan 30, 2014)

Messed around with the settings a bit, here's 24x36" at 150 PPI. I think this is a bit too extreme, but still within the realm of acceptable for me. I'll mess around and try to find a happy medium between a large print and good quality. How is this quality wise from enlarging a 2MP file?




24x36test by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theofficialtevo/12229400345/sizes/o/


----------



## KmH (Jan 30, 2014)

Now all you need to do is see what it looks like as a 24x36 print.


----------

