This is a small spit of land that comes out into the Navasink River. I call this a "make me late" since I was on my way to work, looked over on my way by and got gripped. And late to work! It was foggy and very early so the sun was very low.
Feedback welcome!
Beautiful! I'd have taken it for a watercolour, Ruth. I particularly like the elongated format, and the fading into nothingness on the left.
Calls to mind Arthur Streeton's watery panoramas.
Yea! I was worried that this would just look over exposed.
;)
Nah - "artistic"! ;-)
Beautiful!
Unfortunately, it is clipped at the high end of the exposure. And it looks like you might have tried to compensate by reducing the exposure in post, but the original was too far gone, so now the whites are a little less than white. In my browser, the background around this image is pure white and I expect the white fog in your image to match that value (attachment 1).
When I look at the histogram, I can see two spikes at the high end of the chart. The tallest one is the highs at the left side of your image. Interestingly, this is not the brightest part of the photo. Another, smaller spike represents some bright pixels below the shoreline and above the trees on the right side of the image. Maybe you used a mask on the left half to tone down the sun's light through the fog? (attachments 2 & 3)
Obviously, allowing a few pixels of pure white is fine as long as they represent sources of light or specular highlights. I suspect you may be able to pull out some detail in these highlights if this was a RAW original. If it was a JPEG, those highlight details are just gone and can never be recovered because they were never recorded.
You are right about the original probably being too far gone. I am on my way out but I wanted to thank you ASAP for this. I will need to read and think later. I may PM you with questions. I feel so lucky to have you put the time in to give me this information!
Clipping is not necessarily "unfortunate" at all in this case, for me. I'd have expected that much of the left of the image would be pure white (the very slightly off-white is not significantly different), but if this were, say, printed on watercolour paper, that would look perfectly fine. It is not a photographic representation of reality in quite the usual way to me at all, but an impressionistic rendition in its own right.
Phillip may have a point in that you may have reduced the overexposed areas to less than pure white; my point would simply be that this step may or may not help the image, but doesn't alter the expressive value of the image, which is not marred by any technical issue. It transcends these.
Thanks Chris. I like the impressionistic mood of early misty morning here. The fade to white(ish) works for me. I may print this on watercolor paper. I like the linear format too.
At the same time I am trying to up my technical skills so I appreciate all info for future work. I have a good eye but less skills technically. I am a straight from the camera with darkroom style editing. The more I learn to master the camera and basic editing the better since I am not in a position to buy expensive equipment. Working what I have to the maxiumum it can do is the goal!
I've got a long way to go - thank goodness because I like learning!
I so appreciate all the input I get here!!
Very painterly actually! And I love foggy mornings!