Oh I like to be at the seaside... oh I do like to be beside the sea

Tsukuihama Beach
DSCF1015.jpg

Fujifilm GFX100SII camera
Fujinon GF 63mm f2.8 lens
Miura Peninsula, Japan - January 2025
​
 
Coming back from Costco this evening and I swung by the basin to see who was in. The Taasinge was readying up for crabbing, The deck hand on the aft deck said they go out for nine or ten days. This is another hand on the foredeck. The lens is the Thypoch Simera f/1.4. Nice color but not sharp. I was shooting at 1/30 and f/4.0. Maybe f/2.8 at 1/60 would have been the better choice. Well, here it is anyway.

 
I am not sure I have posted this shot. One of the great joys of old age is that each day everything is all new. LOL If I have posted it I suppose I should apologize. But I love the light and color so much that I am kind of like a parent bragging about their child. Repetitions seem appropriate.

So here is the Willamette - pronounced Will-ammitt - tied up at night here in the Astoria West Mooring Basin likely ducking a storm that was on its way.

B0002136 by West Phalia, on Flickr​
 
boojum said:
Today is one of the rare winter sunny days. Sunny also almost always means cold, and it was, mid-30's which is cold for around here. The first shot is looking south form the Ecola State Park and the second is south on Cannon Beach.

L1000169 by West Phalia, on Flickr

L1000175 by West Phalia, on Flickr​
Click to expand...

Very nice images. 'Really like the subject matter and composition.

Is there is any detail recoverable in the shadows? Not a criticism, just curious.
 
brusby said:
Very nice images. 'Really like the subject matter and composition.

Is there is any detail recoverable in the shadows? Not a criticism, just curious.
Click to expand...

Interesting question. I shot both RAW and JPG, I always do. I could take a peek and see. The Oregon Coast can be quite beautiful. After a while we take it for granted so I like to get out and poke around for a while. I'll see what is in the RAW's. But I know nothing about editing and am lazy enough that I would starve if the peanut butter lid were on real tight. ;o)
 
boojum said:
Interesting question. I shot both RAW and JPG, I always do. I could take a peek and see. The Oregon Coast can be quite beautiful. After a while we take it for granted so I like to get out and poke around for a while. I'll see what is in the RAW's. But I know nothing about editing and am lazy enough that I would starve if the peanut butter lid were on real tight. ;o)
Click to expand...
Easy to check, just raise the brightness level of the raw file a few stops and look at the shadow areas. When shooting high contrast scenes with most modern cameras there will usually be a wealth of information hidden there.

I was taught it's good practice never to have large areas devoid of detail, whether it be highlights or shadows.

In the early days of shooting film, it was possible to look at the negative to see if the shadow areas contained detail. If they did, it was considered best to have as much detail as possible visible in the final print.

And on my first job printing professionally many years ago, the studio owner, who was an excellent photographer and head of our state's Professional Photographer's Association, took one of my prints and held it up in front of a very bright light. The darkest areas on the print, when illuminated from behind, showed quite a bit of detail that had been almost completely hidden in darkness when the print was viewed under normal reflected light. I was told to go back and print again until all hidden detail became apparent under normal viewing conditions. That was considered the standard, at least for professional prints suitable for display and publication.

Currently, I usually employ the same approach regarding shadow and highlight details when editing digital photos. But instead of looking at a negative or viewing a print in bright backlight, we now have the luxury of just increasing the brightness of the raw file to see what detail is hidden in shadows, and conversely decreasing brightness to check highlight details, before making the final edit or print.

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else how you should approach your handling of such things. Just sharing what info I was given long ago.

After all, it's art and we're not constrained by professional or commercial standards.
 
Last edited:
brusby said:
Easy to check, just raise the brightness level of the raw file a few stops and look at the shadow areas. When shooting high contrast scenes with most modern cameras there will usually be a wealth of information hidden there.

I was taught it's good practice never to have large areas devoid of detail, whether it be highlights or shadows.

In the early days of shooting film, it was possible to look at the negative to see if the shadow areas contained detail. If they did, it was considered best to have as much detail as possible visible in the final print.

And on my first job printing professionally many years ago, the studio owner, who was an excellent photographer and head of our state's Professional Photographer's Association, took one of my prints and held it up in front of a very bright light. The darkest areas on the print, when illuminated from behind, showed quite a bit of detail that had been almost completely hidden in darkness when the print was viewed under normal reflected light. I was told to go back and print again until all hidden detail became apparent under normal viewing conditions. That was considered the standard, at least for professional prints suitable for display and publication.

Currently, I usually employ the same approach regarding shadow and highlight details when editing digital photos. But instead of looking at a negative or viewing a print in bright backlight, we now have the luxury of just increasing the brightness of the raw file to see what detail is hidden in shadows, and conversely decreasing brightness to check highlight details, before making the final edit or print.

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else how you should approach your handling of such things. Just sharing what info I was given long ago.

After all, it's art and we're not constrained by professional or commercial standards.
Click to expand...


No, no, no, I appreciate your taking the time and making the effort. I'll fire up ART with the RAW's and see what is there. I just hate editing. Lazy. ;o) Sometimes I think if it were not for fast food I would have died long ago. If I could get muffaletta here I'd be a blimp. Muffaletta, man, that is ambrosia. And I can make a good Wop Salad for it but the meats are all over 100 miles away and the bread doubtful. OK, ART time.


OK, how is this for a first try. Converted in ART, reduced in size in GIMP

L1000169me.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom