Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves - Round 2

[dlleno]

love the 10-22. just to lighten up the mood, here is a wave that hasn't crashed yet lol. taken with the 10-22 REAL close. no underwater housing. camera moving with the wave firing away at 6fps. I got drenched but the camera didn't

Wow!
Just wonder why do you have so much magenta in the left upper corner, is that color fringe or famous red noise, which may be the case because the same thing you can see on the lower right in the dark parts of the water with no contrast.
In case if this was produced by the 10-22 lens, you probably have a bad copy.

well, now you have me doubting that this was in fact the 10-22; the no contrast in the water could be flare, and this could have been the 17-55, although the color fringing at the top of the wave is characteristic 10-22.

as for the magenta itself, I suspect that is an artifact of heavy pp; probably pushed the red sat slider too far. the colors were pretty wacked in post, so that the wave didn't appear too green and poluted

 

[Sunnystate]

love the 10-22. just to lighten up the mood, here is a wave that hasn't crashed yet lol. taken with the 10-22 REAL close. no underwater housing. camera moving with the wave firing away at 6fps. I got drenched but the camera didn't

Wow!
Just wonder why do you have so much magenta in the left upper corner, is that color fringe or famous red noise, which may be the case because the same thing you can see on the lower right in the dark parts of the water with no contrast.
In case if this was produced by the 10-22 lens, you probably have a bad copy.

well, now you have me doubting that this was in fact the 10-22; the no contrast in the water could be flare, and this could have been the 17-55, although the color fringing at the top of the wave is characteristic 10-22.

as for the magenta itself, I suspect that is an artifact of heavy pp; probably pushed the red sat slider too far. the colors were pretty wacked in post, so that the wave didn't appear too green and poluted

Depth of field seems bit to shallow to, you know, I have taped the focusing ring on that lens and using as fixed focus most of the time!
It has enough depth for regular landscaping work even at f5.6, the only problem is when I have to, very rarely zoom in, it needs small correction to the focus.

 

[dlleno]

love the 10-22. just to lighten up the mood, here is a wave that hasn't crashed yet lol. taken with the 10-22 REAL close. no underwater housing. camera moving with the wave firing away at 6fps. I got drenched but the camera didn't

Wow!
Just wonder why do you have so much magenta in the left upper corner, is that color fringe or famous red noise, which may be the case because the same thing you can see on the lower right in the dark parts of the water with no contrast.
In case if this was produced by the 10-22 lens, you probably have a bad copy.

well, now you have me doubting that this was in fact the 10-22; the no contrast in the water could be flare, and this could have been the 17-55, although the color fringing at the top of the wave is characteristic 10-22.

as for the magenta itself, I suspect that is an artifact of heavy pp; probably pushed the red sat slider too far. the colors were pretty wacked in post, so that the wave didn't appear too green and poluted

Depth of field seems bit to shallow to, you know, I have taped the focusing ring on that lens and using as fixed focus most of the time!
It has enough depth for regular landscaping work even at f5.6, the only problem is when I have to, very rarely zoom in, it needs small correction to the focus.

yes, I had the CP on, and now I think this was taken with the 17-55. my apologies for drifting the thread here. also -- part of the reason the foreground is not sharp is due to motion blur -- the camera was held at about a foot from the water surface in front of the wave, without me looking through the viewfinder, and moving rapidly in many vectors to pace the incoming wave. at the last moment I stuck the camera into the air and took the wave, which was probably only 3 feet high, I would say. I think the lack of contrast is partially due to lens flare, and the magenta cast is partially because red has been pushed to bring out the sand, which was only a few inches below the water surface.

I just put this photo up for fun. please continue with the OP's inquiry, and discuss the other related shots

 

[Rick Massie]

They look good! If you want to improve them, I think your best bet is to wait for better light. It looks duskish, or very cloudy in these photos, but if you get a low sun shining through, it'll add contrast and clarity to the waves and splashes, and possibly nice colours as well. Keep trying the location in different light to get a feel for what works best.

Also, it may help to add something to the foreground (ie, a person in the frame - don't let them get too close to the waves though!) to give a sense of scale. Waves and rocks can greatly vary in size, and without something in your frame for size reference, it's sometimes hard to tell whether the wave is big or small.

Just some thoughts from my years shooting beaches and ocean in Newfoundland.

 

[scottc]

I totally agree with the foreground - IMHO it adds a great deal to an ocean/wave image. I think the context added from that plus the tripod you mentioned will help your already nice images. I started using a full tripod, cable release and filter landscape setup about a year ago, and found that while it does take a bit to set up shots, the extra time and effort has made me think through the composition and settings of my shots much more and has resulted in images I am much happier with than before. These two were from a trip to Big Sur last week, and I think start to show a little of the context that foreground can add

They look good! If you want to improve them, I think your best bet is to wait for better light. It looks duskish, or very cloudy in these photos, but if you get a low sun shining through, it'll add contrast and clarity to the waves and splashes, and possibly nice colours as well. Keep trying the location in different light to get a feel for what works best.

Also, it may help to add something to the foreground (ie, a person in the frame - don't let them get too close to the waves though!) to give a sense of scale. Waves and rocks can greatly vary in size, and without something in your frame for size reference, it's sometimes hard to tell whether the wave is big or small.

Just some thoughts from my years shooting beaches and ocean in Newfoundland.