Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Blair McDougall on December 19, 2009, 02:51:25 pm
-
I took this in June hanging off a crab boat. My main concern is the amount of sky. I rarely change my image ratios (2 x 3) but I was just wondering if there was too much sky. What you think? Any comments welcome.
[attachment=18787:_GBT3365_.jpg]
Thanks,
Blair
-
I took this in June hanging off a crab boat. My main concern is the amount of sky. I rarely change my image ratios (2 x 3) but I was just wondering if there was too much sky. What you think? Any comments welcome.
[attachment=18787:_GBT3365_.jpg]
Thanks,
Blair
Yes, too much sky.
-
Yes, too much sky.
I disagree. When I start cropping the sky it begins to look cramped. If the sky were completely uniform with no gradation, I might agree.
So we need some more opinions here.
-
I disagree. When I start cropping the sky it begins to look cramped. If the sky were completely uniform with no gradation, I might agree.
So we need some more opinions here.
I disagree with you.
I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it.
What do you think about that?
-
I took this in June hanging off a crab boat. My main concern is the amount of sky. I rarely change my image ratios (2 x 3) but I was just wondering if there was too much sky. What you think? Any comments welcome.
[attachment=18787:_GBT3365_.jpg]
Thanks,
Blair
My first thought was that the image would be perfect for a Book Cover as the expanse of sky in the photograph could easily lend itself to the addition of a typogrpahic overlay.
I would judge the sky on the use of the photo.
-
My first thought was that the image would be perfect for a Book Cover as the expanse of sky in the photograph could easily lend itself to the addition of a typogrpahic overlay.
I would judge the sky on the use of the photo.
Excellent point that occurred to me as well. Some photographs can be very effective within some intended context, but not so hot outside of it. While many things we hold dear such as level horizons are offended here, the in-your-face water is pretty interesting and sets this shot some apart from your average iceberg shot.
-
[quote name='BlasR' date='Dec 19 2009, 10:34 PM' post='334135']
"I disagree with you.
I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it."
With the very greatest respect, I have to agree.
-
Blair,
It appears that this image appeals to a fairly select group of viewers (myself included) who aren't too wedded to the conventional wisdom about amount of sky, level horizon lines and the like.
Eric
-
Blair,
It appears that this image appeals to a fairly select group of viewers (myself included) who aren't too wedded to the conventional wisdom about amount of sky, level horizon lines and the like.
Eric
Yes. I too like the image. I think it has every possible luminance level of blue, which makes it very interesting to me. Here's another vote for not cropping any sky.
Dave
-
Excellent point that occurred to me as well. Some photographs can be very effective within some intended context, but not so hot outside of it. While many things we hold dear such as level horizons are offended here, the in-your-face water is pretty interesting and sets this shot some apart from your average iceberg shot.
Thank-you for getting it. I didn't mean to offend anybody but I did want to test the waters with this one.
I hear over and over how more and more photographers feel stagnant, everything seems to have been shot to death. My whole idea is to push the conventions that bind instead of broaden a persons imagination or perspective. I meant to be in-your-face a little bit. I've been shooting icebergs for over three years now and I needed to take it further. This is one in a of a series of six, same approach (none level).
Trash?..Perhaps to some, but then I don't shoot for everybody, I shoot for myself. That being said, when this print is on exhibition at 3' X 41/2 ft, it does stop quite e few people saying they have never seen shots like this before. That's the point isn't it?
-
Thank-you for getting it. I didn't mean to offend anybody but I did want to test the waters with this one.
I hear over and over how more and more photographers feel stagnant, everything seems to have been shot to death. My whole idea is to push the conventions that bind instead of broaden a persons imagination or perspective. I meant to be in-your-face a little bit. I've been shooting icebergs for over three years now and I needed to take it further. This is one in a of a series of six, same approach (none level).
Trash?..Perhaps to some, but then I don't shoot for everybody, I shoot for myself. That being said, when this print is on exhibition at 3' X 41/2 ft, it does stop quite e few people saying they have never seen shots like this before. That's the point isn't it?
That's the right attitude. Stick to your guns!
Eric
-
I disagree with you.
I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it.
What do you think about that?
Trash? I think then you'd be losing a great image.
-
I quite like the supposedly deadly tilted horizon, but the sky/ocean ratio seems out of balance.
After playing with it a bit, I've found two options that my eye likes.
A - Crop about 25% off the top.
or
B - Crop off the top 'till you get a square format. I like this the best - it places the strong diagonal full of 'interesting things' dead center.
In either event, I'm sorely tempted to bump the shadow levels a bit, to separate the beautiful wave reflections, and to allow the water+ice to 'compete' with the bright sky.
Something like this, maybe?
(http://members.cox.net/geonerd/images/Burg_SQ.jpg)
-
Amazon only has a couple of these left, a terrific read, better hurry...
[attachment=18804:naked_iceberg.jpg]
I rest my case, is that not a killer cover or what? With apologies to the OP.
-
-
I disagree with you.
I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it.
What do you think about that?
On first glance, I'm inclined to agree. However on further consideration, I do think that if the OP likes it, he should definitely keep it.
That said, I'd be lying if I said it was exhibition or cover quality. A good personal image if you don't get to see bergs very often, but there are thousands of better berg images out there.
-
All this reminds me how frequently photographers and designers and graphic artists and publishers and the public have completely different ideas about what constitutes a good photograph.
There may be thousands of "better" iceberg shots out there, but that close up little patch of water is pure gold, IMHO. Makes it something between personal and frightening somehow, and same for the tilt. We photographers sometimes get a little too tunnel-visioned on our sometimes over homogenized definitions of what's visually and technically correct.
-
...but there are thousands of better berg images out there.
With perfectly level horizons taken from a standing eye level (aka boring).