Fjord

[Cartagenaphoto]

View over the Fjord where I live.
Hope you like it.

Please tell me what you think about it  


Greetings

David Cartagena

   
Sony DSLR-A900
20mm F2.8 @ ƒ/16.0
96 sec.  
100 ISO



Alone on the beach II by David Cartagena, on Flickr

[Paulo Bizarro]

I like the blue feel of the image, plus the flow. I think the sky is a bit uninteresting, perhaps you can return when the sky is more dramatic?

[sdwilsonsct]

There is nice movement and texture here.

You might trim the sky to make it balance the space below the rock, or include more space beneath the rock.

Really satisfying images often have a fore-, mid-, and background. Paulo's suggestion would help the background, but the midground that connects the fore- and back- could use some leading lines or objects.

Something else to think about are titles. The fjord and beach are not obvious in the picture, leading to some confusion.

[Cartagenaphoto]

I like the blue feel of the image, plus the flow. I think the sky is a bit uninteresting, perhaps you can return when the sky is more dramatic?

Hi Paulo.

Thank you for the comment and advise. I find the sky is balancing fine with the fjord and think a dramatic sky would destroy the simplicity of the photo.
But I appreciate your comment which made me look on the photo in another way.



David

[Cartagenaphoto]

There is nice movement and texture here.

You might trim the sky to make it balance the space below the rock, or include more space beneath the rock.

Really satisfying images often have a fore-, mid-, and background. Paulo's suggestion would help the background, but the midground that connects the fore- and back- could use some leading lines or objects.

Something else to think about are titles. The fjord and beach are not obvious in the picture, leading to some confusion.

Hi and thanks for your comment which is appreciated.

Regarding the Rock which is a stone ;-) I intentionally placed it here to make it an important part of the photo. To be noticed.The photo is cropped at the bottom to achieve that. It looked weird otherwise.

I agree that the center part of the photo could use somthing, but I am afraid it would disturb the simplicity.

I newer think deeper over the titles. But I agree with you and should change it to alone in the Fkord or somthing like that ;-).
BTW, I don´t understand you think fjord is not obvious, because it is a fjord and a very typical Danish fjord view( The coast is visible on the other side).


David Cartagena

[luxborealis]

I like the photo. I think we are so bombarded with the dramatic, the less dramatic seem to be missing something.

Having said that, I'm not sure it's a photo I would hang on the wall. It's more of a "background" photo that is ideally designed for a block of type in front.

The stone is interesting in itself, but the rest of the photo is not as equally interesting.

Two technical points: (1) there is a small, dark triangular shadow along the right side that may be from another rock that is slightly distracting; (2) the left side appears a bit "hot" with a loss of contrast, possibly due to sun flare in the top left where the far shore meets the left border.

Lastly, the common concept of a fjord with high, dramatic, steep sides is not portrayed here, and therein lies the disconnect.

These aren't criticisms as much as they are observations. I hope you find them helpful.

[Cartagenaphoto]

I like the photo. I think we are so bombarded with the dramatic, the less dramatic seem to be missing something.

Having said that, I'm not sure it's a photo I would hang on the wall. It's more of a "background" photo that is ideally designed for a block of type in front.

The stone is interesting in itself, but the rest of the photo is not as equally interesting.

Two technical points: (1) there is a small, dark triangular shadow along the right side that may be from another rock that is slightly distracting; (2) the left side appears a bit "hot" with a loss of contrast, possibly due to sun flare in the top left where the far shore meets the left border.

Lastly, the common concept of a fjord with high, dramatic, steep sides is not portrayed here, and therein lies the disconnect.

These aren't criticisms as much as they are observations. I hope you find them helpful.

Hi and thanks. Comments are always appreciated.

1. I see the small dark shadow. But it´s not from a rock since the sun is to the left. It´s simply the flow of water creating a pattern. I should fix that ;-)

2. I know it´s because of he distance and the angle of the sun relative to the coastline. But it´s intentional.

Actually my wife loves it and want it on our wall in 150 x 90 cm (59" x 35"). But taste is different ;-)

A fjord in Danish as well as in Swedish and Norwegian is just like this. The word fjord actually comes from the Scandinavian / Nordic country's.
But the word has become another meaning in English. I guess it´s what you would call an inlet or sound.

But anyway it´s a fjord and it´s actually called "Roskilde Fjord".

https://www.google.dk/maps/@55.8183827,11.8963836,11z?hl=da

[sdwilsonsct]

BTW, I don´t understand you think fjord is not obvious, because it is a fjord and a very typical Danish fjord view( The coast is visible on the other side).

David, it's an english-language thing where we expect a fjord to be narrow and steep-sided.

[Cartagenaphoto]

David, it's an english-language thing where we expect a fjord to be narrow and steep-sided.

Yeah found out  ;-) thanks to wikipedia (Where the definition of the meaning in Danish is somewhat wrong). I always thought that it had the same meaning in English.
But hey I can't expect you all to speak and write Danish ;-)


Greetings

David