Moody Monochrome Seascape

[Bendihossan]

From a very, very, very cold and windy day in Aberystwyth last week. Far from the best conditions! Wasn't too sure about this shot at first because my Cokin NDs did their best to cast everything pink (hence the mono & I've still not got around to ordering a hitech kit) but it seemed relatively popular on flickr so wouldn't mind knowing what you lot think too. Does it work or not? :shrug:

 

[Bendihossan]

Dead as a dodo, eh?

 

[mstphoto]

I like the idea behind this shot but it could be improved by making the foreground rock a bit bigger in the frame by getting closer and lower to it.

 

[Bendihossan]

I like the idea behind this shot but it could be improved by making the foreground rock a bit bigger in the frame by getting closer and lower to it.

Unfortunately the shortest focusing distance on the 24-105 is 45cm. I do have a kitty saving up for a 17-40 though

 

[Steve Smith]

Unfortunately the shortest focusing distance on the 24-105 is 45cm.

At f16 or so you may have enough depth of field to get it in focus though.


Steve.

 

[Bendihossan]

At f16 or so you may have enough depth of field to get it in focus though.

It wasn't a matter of depth of field, but more of a matter of not being able to get close enough to the subject because the len's minimum focusing distance wasn't short enough.

 

[who?]

I think that Steve means that even with the shortest focusing distance, a small aperture will give a sufficiently deep DOF that things nearer to the lens than the shortest focus distance will still be in focus and that you could have got quite close.

 

[Bendihossan]

I think that Steve means that even with the shortest focusing distance, a small aperture will give a sufficiently deep DOF that things nearer to the lens than the shortest focus distance will still be in focus and that you could have got quite close.

I understand the point and be it valid no aperture will let you bring an out of focus are back into focus only lengthen the depth of field. I may be pixel peeping to see the difference but it matters!

 

[dalex_257]

It's a bit empty for me. In my view because of the rather flat sky and sea and no standing out foreground interest - you have a hard time communicating the "moody" part of this picture.

45cm focusing distance is not that bad. The problem here is also that you are quite high above the ground so you are wasting those 45 cm really making the foreground rock look quite small and flat. The golden rule of any landscape photographer is to get down to the ground - get quite low and you will be able to have a better use of those 45cm focusing distance and possibly bring the rock to stand out more.