Barry Seascape.

[MJ224]

Following the Nightscape, the next day I took this seascape, Barry Docks Entrance...

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day Mate

A nice view of the foreshore plus the main components of a good landscape ... foreground + middle distance + far distance
I see the water-stain marks on the rocks ... big tide movements? or storms?

Phil

[MJ224]

Thanks Phil. Yes the Bristol Channel has 12+ metre tides, only second to the Bay of Fundy in Canada. With a storm, the prevailing winds are from the SW, and low atmospheric pressures raise the tide even more...

[David_MC]

Very nice. Some nice tones in those rocks.

[wigz]

Good leading lines, nice colours in the rocks and good clouds in the sky. Very nice.

[Isac]

Hi Mark.
That's a great photo which has good detail, framing and POV. PLUS you got a bird doing a fly pass. I do see a strong blue colour cast though.
To fix that in Photoshop, you can change the Curves DEFAULT settings:

Part 1

1. Add a Curves adjustment layer and hold ALT while you click on the Curves AUTO button.

2. Change the settings as below, check Save as defaults and click OK.

3. You can see by the RGB adjustments, that the blue cast has been fixed.


here's the results which have removed the colour cast.

Part 2
I am mystified as to how good it came out with the settings you used. f/4 | 1/2000s | ISO 400. It looked like the light was good with a bit of cloud about.
For a similar shot next time, switch to Manual and try stopping down to f:8 or f:11, ISO 100 - 200 and lower the shutter speed to get a good exposure. Focus 1/3 into the scene for sharpness throughout the image. I've never used 1/2000 for landscapes - it's my minimum speed for birds-in-flight

[wigz]

I didn't mind the colour in the original image Isac - at least the sea looked blue - but the adjusted imaget with its pleasant warmer tones may better match the scene at the time.

The shot was taken in aperture priority which should be fine for landscapes in reasonable light, and is what I would normally use. Exposure looks good here but the problem is the f/4 aperture which will give a shallower depth of field, although the image looks Ok at this size. This aperture has resulted in the camera choosing the 1/2000 shutter speed.

I wouldn't bother fiddling with manual unless the light was challenging in some way. Just changing the aperture to f/11 would improve depth of field, and would have given a shutter speed of 1/250 which would be more typical. Reducing ISO to 200 would still give a shutter speed of 1/125 but probably wouldn't have much effect on image quality.

Also lenses are usually sharper across the frame when closed down a couple of stops, but this would be insignificant compared to out-of-focus blur of foreground or background due to too shallow depth of field.

[MJ224]

Thanks for the comments. As wigz notes, the settings were aperture priority. f4 works well, so the shutter speed was a consequence of that. The Oly is MFT, so my f4 is FF f8! Again I set ISO to Auto, with 400 being the starting point. Apparently, the Oly/OMD base ISO is 400, no point in setting it lower. I take your points though.

Yes, there is a slightly blue tinge, I should have taken a colour reading in Lightroom and corrected it...

And maybe I used the 2000th to get the bird... (joke)

Thanks again for your interest and comment

[wigz]

Fair point Mark, the physical aperture size is smaller so more depth of field, but I'm not sure it is that simple.. The whole equivalent aperture/equivalent exposure argument is a minefield that I don't pretend to understand.

I think I would be stopping down a little more for landscapes. I tend to make sure near objects are sharp even if it means that distance objects get a little soft - it helps with the sense of depth. I find this (or any other) depth of field calculator interesting https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof but never use one when taking photos.

Are you sure about base ISO. 400 seems high, most cameras seem to be either 100 or 200.

[MJ224]

Thanks again for the constructive comments. Re the base ISO, I think I heard that in a Mike Lane video. But logically you are right. I might change that in my set up....:-)