Maine sunrise

[Daytrader]

I'm starting to figure out the ISO thing.

 

[Duke]

I would love to see it larger, upload it to Imgur (free) and then link embed it in this thread.

I love the colors, but I find the branch at the top a distraction as well as the high grass to the lower left.

I can't really tell much else due to the size, but it is a pleasing image to look at.

how do you think you did? you mentioned your starting to figure out the ISO thing, so what were your exposure setting? What would you do different/change if you could take this same image again?

 

[Daytrader]

Thanks Duke.
I cropped out the top branch.https://jrshermanphotography.smugmug.com/Maine-Landscapes/i-s6nKpsT/A
ISO was 800, F2, 1/30. I think. It was still pretty dark.
Let me know if the link works.

 

[Not Dave]

John, I do love the colors in the photo. Not having that top branch there does seem to be less distracting but the byproduct is less sky to view and thus less color. I have at times used branches to "frame" a photo but on something like this you would want all that color to be uninterrupted if possible.

Question for Duke: if John were to use a tripod and go for a longer exposure would the resulting image show a smoother body of water?

The large aperture sure helps in low light that's why I love my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens on my Sony DSLR. I've taken some good candid shots inside restaurants and such with groups using available light that turned out well.

 

[mikes old virago]

Faster iso keeps the wave forms clear. Slower shutter could blur the ripples. And that adds to the calm.

 

[Daytrader]

Faster iso keeps the wave forms clear. Slower shutter could blur the ripples. And that adds to the calm.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[M38A1]

From what I can see, I like it... Echoing Duke, larger is better for these things.

Yes, the colors are vibrant/calming at the same time and yes, to me the branch up top is a bit disconnected. I like the subject matter and content and the approach.

 

[garfey]

I like the branch & weeds just as they are; they connect it to the land. Many moons ago I took sunrise & sunset pics in mid-Pacific, off the bridge of Bonefish, and with nothing to tie them to anything "concrete" they were bleh.

But as a photographer I'd make a good ditch-digger.

 

[Duke]

Thanks Duke.
I cropped out the top branch.https://jrshermanphotography.smugmug.com/Maine-Landscapes/i-s6nKpsT/A
ISO was 800, F2, 1/30. I think. It was still pretty dark.
Let me know if the link works.

Thanks for linking to the bigger image. The crop has reduced the overall color of the image. If your using LR the spot removal tool could "paint" the branch out of the image, (as an option).

John, I do love the colors in the photo. Not having that top branch there does seem to be less distracting but the byproduct is less sky to view and thus less color. I have at times used branches to "frame" a photo but on something like this you would want all that color to be uninterrupted if possible.

Question for Duke: if John were to use a tripod and go for a longer exposure would the resulting image show a smoother body of water?

The large aperture sure helps in low light that's why I love my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens on my Sony DSLR. I've taken some good candid shots inside restaurants and such with groups using available light that turned out well.

Yes, and like Mike said in his post, that is exactly what happens. The longer the exposure, the smother the water will appear.

However I will speculate that he would have lost the vibrant color as the sky will no over expose and be more "white" because of the long shutter.

 

[Not Dave]

Faster iso keeps the wave forms clear. Slower shutter could blur the ripples. And that adds to the calm.

Ran into this article this evening and thought of this thread and what was talked about. Granted this is a British publication but still applies.

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2015/06/26/how-to-blur-water-for-a-dreamy-seascape-effect/