Hvitserkur

[StevenS]

Someone posted a picture of this place in the landscape awards comp, being new here it took me till 13 December to notice there was such a thread.
Took this one earlier this year on a lovely day, 30 second exposure with an A7R Leica Tele-elmarit 90/f2.8 and 10+5 ND filters.
printed it on metallic gloss the other day and came out quite nice.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•


… breathtaking scene and cool capture!

 

[Craigus]

Wow, that is quite stunning. The foreground is very distracting though, I zoomed up so my browser window cut it off and it is a massive improvement in my opinion, much simpler and attention is drawn where it should be.

 

[StevenS]

Wow, that is quite stunning. The foreground is very distracting though, I zoomed up so my browser window cut it off and it is a massive improvement in my opinion, much simpler and attention is drawn where it should be.

Here is a trimmed one as you suggested and another image with a longer lens, 13 second exposure and no crop. You may have a point, but I always like some foreground.

 

[Brazo]

The foreground appears to be a little out of focus (could just be my eyes!) but does add some context that is lost once cropped out.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Much better without a foreground. Less is often more. There is a lot of banding in the 1st two images, not in the last. The bluer sky works better.

 

[StevenS]

Much better without a foreground. Less is often more. There is a lot of banding in the 1st two images, not in the last. The bluer sky works better.

The banding is on this site upload, it's not in the original image.

I'm now in agreement - no foreground. I much prefer the grey sky. There was no tweaking in that department, came out like that. But that's a matter of taste.

What I've been looking at is that I prefer 30s at f/8 rather than 15s at f/2 (in good light with 15ND filters).

Here's another pair, similar thing, the 2x3 is 15s at f/8, the panoramic 30s at f/1.7 (both with a Leica Q). The conditions were more crashing waves than relatively flat water. Depending what speed and aperture combination used, seem to get different levels of fogginess or glass-like water. Longer exposure seems to intensify the colour and the contrast.

 

[Nawty]

Foreground is only needed to make wide angle shots look interesting, shooting telephoto you are isolating the subject so the focus should be on that.

Looks like an awesome place!

 

[StevenS]

Foreground is only needed to make wide angle shots look interesting, shooting telephoto you are isolating the subject so the focus should be on that.

Looks like an awesome place!

Thanks. I'd been to Iceland a couple of times including a big trip round the whole island with the family about 5 years ago. It was still quiet and we had great fun. I went in March to go to a couple of concerts. They have possibly the finest concert hall in Europe. I has 6 or 7 days between two concerts, there was lots of snow and I followed the sun, as making plans in Iceland is a fool's errand. I have stayed in touch with our original agent over there, we had a nice evening out, he persuaded me to stay in his mate's lodge and the next few mornings before the snow was cleared were spent arguing football, about which they are mad and are mostly Liverpool supporters.

My wife likes hot and I like cold. She does yoga retreats. Bizarrely, for 2018 we independently chose Lofoten, me 5 days in March trudging around in thermals, her July for yoga.

 

[pierre]

real nice set ... i thought that was a building on top at first!

 

[Norkie]

An amazing structure, well processed

 

[StevenS]

An amazing structure, well processed

Thanks, but there is virtually no processing in these images !

 

[Craig_85]

I bet the image did suit metallic gloss well. I prefer the crop without the foreground, second image of the thread over the different focal length 3rd image of the thread. I don't know what is going on with the processing though, oversaturated blues in the water bled into the shaded rock side, but the background is mono.

I also like the Dyrholaey shot with the nice shadow of the sea stack in it, the 4th image of the thread. The 5th, unfortunately is not quite wide enough to give the Vik sea stacks some breathing space and show all of the river snaking up the beach to the left. Both of these images are quite blue.

 

[StevenS]

I bet the image did suit metallic gloss well. I prefer the crop without the foreground, second image of the thread over the different focal length 3rd image of the thread. I don't know what is going on with the processing though, oversaturated blues in the water bled into the shaded rock side, but the background is mono.

I also like the Dyrholaey shot with the nice shadow of the sea stack in it, the 4th image of the thread. The 5th, unfortunately is not quite wide enough to give the Vik sea stacks some breathing space and show all of the river snaking up the beach to the left. Both of these images are quite blue.

This particular spot in Iceland can be photographed from a zillion places and umpteen different times of day with the light changing every few seconds. That the fun of Iceland and the need to be flexible.

The problem with the sea is that in sunlight it is usually blue. I have black and white images, as at the time I actually had a Leica Monochrom with me.

To give an idea, here are a couple of pictures of the famous basalt at Vik, these are the original images without any correction, taken 4 years apart, one at midday, the other at sunset.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'd have to go with the cropped 13s version because the others I must point out are almost certainly far overexposed well beyond a point of no return and "recovered" by brute force to give a lot of fake grey mostly in the sky but also mountains and foreground. Some sort of ND filter was used here and that must have left a very blue colour cast which is begging to be corrected.

 

[StevenS]

I'd have to go with the cropped 13s version because the others I must point out are almost certainly far overexposed well beyond a point of no return and "recovered" by brute force to give a lot of fake grey mostly in the sky but also mountains and foreground. Some sort of ND filter was used here and that must have left a very blue colour cast which is begging to be corrected.

There is no overexposure and no exposure adjustment. I was using Lee ND filters and it is not difficult to get settings right with them. I also have a Leica Q and can use that with the same filters in Auto mode up to 30s to get accurate settings. Like everyone else, I would always error towards underexposure.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

There is no overexposure and no exposure adjustment. I was using Lee ND filters and it is not difficult to get settings right with them. I also have a Leica Q and can use that with the same filters in Auto mode up to 30s to get accurate settings. Like everyone else, I would always error towards underexposure.

I know that look of grey muddiness in the areas of bright highlights very well. It happens with any digital camera when pushed too far and even Hasselblads are no exception. But there is also no reason why even 10yo Canon 400D couldn't handle that scene. The water is extreme blue so the sky had no excuse of being not blue unless this was some sort of dawn or sunset with weird WB - I just can't imagine that scenario. In contrast, the 13s image looks pretty much normal aside from a slight blue / magenta cast. I hope you can see the difference I am referring to. If you post completely unedited file we could quickly evaluate the histogram and confirm the culprit 100%. I'm just trying to help.

In fact if I were to photograph this location I would just wait till the sun was low and in better position to light the rock - which means evening.

next example:

This particular spot in Iceland can be photographed from a zillion places and umpteen different times of day with the light changing every few seconds. That the fun of Iceland and the need to be flexible.

The problem with the sea is that in sunlight it is usually blue. I have black and white images, as at the time I actually had a Leica Monochrom with me.

To give an idea, here are a couple of pictures of the famous basalt at Vik, these are the original images without any correction, taken 4 years apart, one at midday, the other at sunset.

View attachment 116430 View attachment 116431

Left image looks quite natural. I've actually been there myself. On the right the sky looks on the limit of being blown out (light cyan hues is your hint). It may recover or maybe it is at the limit already. Then there is white balance which is again super blue. You can adjust it any way to suit the view, to make it look representative to your perception of the scene at the time or else... I hope you are editing on calibrated high quality screen?!

Maybe too fancy exotic setups are getting in a way. I would never stack heavy ND filters as from experience that just invites problems. These days I try not to use any as you just get cleaner and much more pleasing results 9 times out of 10, while bracketing helps in the situation of "difficult" light and helps to deal with difficult highlights and shadows.

Now that is a great composition, good exposure and nice light. White balance needs warming up BY A LOT, but that is one image I would be pretty happy with.

 

[StevenS]

I know that look of grey muddiness in the areas of bright highlights very well. It happens with any digital camera when pushed too far and even Hasselblads are no exception. But there is also no reason why even 10yo Canon 400D couldn't handle that scene. The water is extreme blue so the sky had no excuse of being not blue unless this was some sort of dawn or sunset with weird WB - I just can't imagine that scenario. In contrast, the 13s image looks pretty much normal aside from a slight blue / magenta cast. I hope you can see the difference I am referring to. If you post completely unedited file we could quickly evaluate the histogram and confirm the culprit 100%. I'm just trying to help.

In fact if I were to photograph this location I would just wait till the sun was low and in better position to light the rock - which means evening.

next example:


Left image looks quite natural. I've actually been there myself. On the right the sky looks on the limit of being blown out (light cyan hues is your hint). It may recover or maybe it is at the limit already. Then there is white balance which is again super blue. You can adjust it any way to suit the view, to make it look representative to your perception of the scene at the time or else... I hope you are editing on calibrated high quality screen?!

Maybe too fancy exotic setups are getting in a way. I would never stack heavy ND filters as from experience that just invites problems. These days I try not to use any as you just get cleaner and much more pleasing results 9 times out of 10, while bracketing helps in the situation of "difficult" light and helps to deal with difficult highlights and shadows.



Now that is a great composition, good exposure and nice light. White balance needs warming up BY A LOT, but that is one image I would be pretty happy with.

Those images of the Vik basalt were just an indication of what can happen in different light. The uploaded images were unprocessed previews generated by my QNAP.

I like to keep processing at a minimum. I do have a calibrated BENQ 27 screen, also handy as it can be switched to b&w.

 

[StevenS]

I know that look of grey muddiness in the areas of bright highlights very well. It happens with any digital camera when pushed too far and even Hasselblads are no exception. But there is also no reason why even 10yo Canon 400D couldn't handle that scene. The water is extreme blue so the sky had no excuse of being not blue unless this was some sort of dawn or sunset with weird WB - I just can't imagine that scenario. In contrast, the 13s image looks pretty much normal aside from a slight blue / magenta cast. I hope you can see the difference I am referring to. If you post completely unedited file we could quickly evaluate the histogram and confirm the culprit 100%. I'm just trying to help.

Actually, you are correct, I'd pulled that one back, but I still like it. I'd forgotten what I was up to, I took pics at all sorts of speeds at correct, under and over exposed with various filters.

I've just processed this one, which was apparently with a medium graduated filter that adds contract in the sky and reveals a bank of clouds.

Getting back to Basalt, which is all over the place, this is some basalt rather off the beaten track at a place called Litlanesfoss in the East. This image is unadjusted save for a slight clarity boost.

This one is +100 on saturation, +70 on clarity and +50 on contrast. I shadowed the top third that was a bit over-exposed. People do these sorts of extreme processing, I tend not to, but I was surprised at the colour that came out of the rock. I don't know if I like it or hate it.

The Basalt is far more impressive than at Vik.

 

[StevenS]

For those on the Basalt trail, for purely reference purposes, this one is a place called Dverghamrar, short stumpy basalt in a field 2 minutes from a car park, but very impressive.

Finally, the outer skin of the Harpa complex, which was the purpose of my trip, is based on the basalt structure. At night the colours are constantly changing between the blues and purples that basalt looks like in the low light. This was by the famous Icelandic architect Olafur Eliasson, who's just done the Oslo Opera House, I saw an amazing Paris Opera Ballet performance for which he'd done the sets and he is in the running to do the new concert hall planned for London. The building won the biannual European Architecture Prize. The acoustics are stunning.