Sea Caves - Northern Wisconsin

Keen Ai

Senior Member
Hey everyone - I just decided to get into a photography forum. I like the idea of this section and I want to grow by constructive criticism and/or praise and help others do the same, as time allows. ;) Mods, please let me know if I'm doing something wrong - I read the rules and looked around a bit at other threads, so I hope this fits in well enough.

Here's my first shot for you all to rip into -- good, bad, etc. I have thick skin, so no worries.

I wanted to capture the cramped nature of this little icy cave, and despite it being cramped and cold, still a better alternative to the brutally cold and snow-covered Lake Superior with what appears to be an impending storm on the horizon. I also wanted to capture the astoundingly blue sky in that location... the bluest I've ever seen. How did I do?

D5200
1/640 sec at f/11, ISO 800
30mm on a Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6
(ISO was a gross mistake on this photo, I forgot to switch it after having shot in a much darker area)


 

Attachments

  • 2014-01-23-16h.05m.02s-.jpg
    2014-01-23-16h.05m.02s-.jpg
    104.7 KB · Views: 162

Moab Man

Senior Member
It's an interesting photo because you're standing in front of an interesting subject. Here is my suggestion. I would do this photo as two separate shots and mounted on a tripod. First shot set for focus on the inside of the cave and exposing for the inside of the cave. However, just a little bit dark (about what you presently have) so it feels like I'm in a cave. Second shot. Focus on the distant water and set the exposure for outside. Then stack the two photos into one.

However, I don't know if the outside could actually be improved upon as I was not there. I really like the photo.
 

Mike D90

Senior Member
How can you have a sea cave where there is no sea? Wisconsin has no access to any ocean or sea but to a series of lakes.
 

Keen Ai

Senior Member
It's an interesting photo because you're standing in front of an interesting subject. Here is my suggestion. I would do this photo as two separate shots and mounted on a tripod. First shot set for focus on the inside of the cave and exposing for the inside of the cave. However, just a little bit dark (about what you presently have) so it feels like I'm in a cave. Second shot. Focus on the distant water and set the exposure for outside. Then stack the two photos into one.

However, I don't know if the outside could actually be improved upon as I was not there. I really like the photo.

Interesting idea.. I haven't played much with stacking photos yet. Kinda sounds like you're recommending a pseudo-HDR technique?
 

Mike D90

Senior Member
You're right in pointing out the misnomer. Not my words... they are referred to as sea caves by the NPS despite being located along Lake Superior. Whatever... Sea for yourself: Apostle Islands Sea Caves - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore (U.S. National Park Service)

Thanks for the critique.


I was not intending this as critique but a clarification of what the photo actually is. It just sounded strange to me that they are called Sea Caves in similar terms to Lakes have "shores" and oceans have a "beach".

I actually do not give "critique" due to the forum rules and requirements for this "Critique" section. I do participate in the "Feedback" area.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Like Moab Man, I would love to see the inside of the cave a little better. The D5200 has a nice sensor and I'm thinking you can probably pull some more out of the darker areas inside - at least you can if you shot raw. Even from the low res, ISO 800 jpeg you've uploaded I was able to brighten up the inside of the cave considerably without adding too much noise in no time. Not sure what tools you're using, but even just a basic midrange level adjustment (ctrl/command-L in Photoshop or Elements) brings out the inside of the cave very quickly...

Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 6.54.30 AM.jpg

...and from there you can go about fine tuning the rest, bringing out the various details and darkening the sky a bit from what the level adjustment gave you.

Camera sensors have gotten so good lately that I've found I can do a pseudo-HDR process with a single image. Unlike single image tone mapping, which compresses the look a little too much for my tastes, what I've done is to make a copy of the original RAW file (I use virtual copies in Lightroom if you have access to that tool) and do only an exposure adjustment to the each copy. For something like yours, if it's exposed for the sky then I would likely do a +1EV and a +2EV copy, etc. until I could see all the details I wanted in the cave. Then I'd send those into my HDR process (note, you'll need to manually adjust EV's in the metadata or in the tool - HDR Efex Pro allows you to input them in the merge dialogue).

It's a really cool image, and I'd love to have access to a place like that to shoot. If you can get back it's definitely worth trying some bracketed series and doing some HDR, but if you've got RAW files then I think you have all you need to make this one pop.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
It just sounded strange to me that they are called Sea Caves in similar terms to Lakes have "shores" and oceans have a "beach".

This gave me a chuckle! :) Around here we say the Jersey shore, but when I moved to New Jersey for a few years, people asked why I was saying I'm going to the shore when they called it the beach.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
You don't go "to the shore", you go "down the shore" here in NJ.

Yes, you are absolutely correct! :cool:


But when you get there you sit on the beach. ;)

Lol! *I* sit on my arse! :surprise: ba-da-bum ;) Once there, it does become a beach though. :) Funny how different areas of the country (and sometimes the world) use different terminology to express the same meaning.
 

Keen Ai

Senior Member
Like Moab Man, I would love to see the inside of the cave a little better. The D5200 has a nice sensor and I'm thinking you can probably pull some more out of the darker areas inside - at least you can if you shot raw. Even from the low res, ISO 800 jpeg you've uploaded I was able to brighten up the inside of the cave considerably without adding too much noise in no time. Not sure what tools you're using, but even just a basic midrange level adjustment (ctrl/command-L in Photoshop or Elements) brings out the inside of the cave very quickly...

View attachment 70831

...and from there you can go about fine tuning the rest, bringing out the various details and darkening the sky a bit from what the level adjustment gave you.

Thanks for the tips! I shoot in raw and have both LR and PS at my disposal. This goes back to another person's comment, but I guess the reason I didn't want the inside of the cave too bright is because that nearest overhanging part wasn't in focus. I think a combination of his idea of 2 exposures with different focus points and your idea of exposing the inside of the cave would be cool. Maybe next time! It's hard to get too serious about things like that when it's below zero degrees F and your hands are already frozen from holding the block of ice (called a camera) that takes pictures. :p
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
It's hard to get too serious about things like that when it's below zero degrees F and your hands are already frozen from holding the block of ice (called a camera) that takes pictures. :p

Believe me, I know!! I was out shooting the frozen Delaware River in 5 degrees with a -19 windchill and sat in my car for 10 minutes in agony afterward while my fingers unfroze. There were so many more pictures to take, but I just couldn't bring myself to take them.
 
Top