Hi all, this post corresponds to a comment I posted on the current Long Exposure Critique the Community seeing how people felt about submitting a 30 second base exposure with some waves composited in from a .6 second exposure in the critique. Thoughts on that are welcome (as is any other critique of either version!). Thanks!
These are much improved to my eye compared with your earlier versions, Josh.
This is because I find myself looking at the beautiful scene, and immersed in it, rather than thinking about processing - essentially because the overall effect is more natural-looking, with a more plausible sky.
I rather prefer the first, with that splash on the left, the bird, and the wave on the right. Not so sure about the darker, silhouetted spray in the centre. At first, it doesn't look right, but on closer examination it makes sense.
Knowing the story, I realise you've worked hard for this, but it doesn't show - which, ironically is how it should be! Good job.
Thanks Chris, really appreciate it—these were refined to their current state largely thanks to your suggestions on my original post (blending the wave on the right better, darkening the sky), so I owe ya one!
It’s interesting, the crashing wave in the middle was the one that I always intended to composite in since I think it most conveys the power of the ocean that was missing from the more ethereal look of the original—but I definitely do see what you’re saying about the effect of the spray coming off of it. Just goes to show that sometimes you need to take a step back and listen to what the image is telling you works and doesn’t work, rather than forcing a pre-determined end product in your head. You need to have a vision for the image, but also need to be flexible as things come together.
Thanks, as always, for your input!