Romsdalshorn and Rauma

[berbig]

[attachment=5154:attachment]
This picture is from a community called Rauma at the western coast of Norway. You can se the salmon river also named Rauma and the distant mountain just above the fisherman is Romsdalshorn. Near by is the small town Åndalsnes.
I would be glad if somebody could tell me what is good and what could be better.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

My first inclination would be to crop the bottom up to just a little below the rock on the right, since the gravel foreground isn't that attractive. This makes it more of a panorama.

Whether or not you choose to crop, I would also lighten up the middle portion that has the green fields and the village/farm so they and the fisherman stand out a bit more.

Lovely photo, and a great place. I hope you'll keep showing more of your Norway photos.

[Lisa Nikodym]

I agree with Eric's assessment that the foreground needs cropping (just below the nearest large rock), as it doesn't add anything to the photo.  Otherwise, I like it.

I've been to Norway twice (including the Andalsnes area, briefly), and you have caused me to remember how much I miss it!  It's a beautiful country, with wonderful people.  I will go back one of these days.

Lisa

[wolfnowl]

I'd agree with that.  My first thought was that the photograph was too busy.  Cropping the bottom would alleviate that.

Mike.

[Neil Hunt]

Berbig, here is just a suggestion, you may find it a bit overcooked for your taste.

[Staples]

Hi - a great photograph!  A suggestion perhaps.  Once you place a person, i.e. a live subject, in your photograph, he, she, or it then becomes the centre of interest in your photograph - whether you intended it or not. Thus, in my view, the other elements should be complementary to that subject.  Thus I agree that some of the bottom should be cropped but only about 10%.  However, I find that the rock and the (beautiful) warm mountain on the right edge of the photograph pull one's eye out of the picture and away from the fisherman.  Thus I would crop the right side of the photo just at the left edge of the rock in question.  Part of the left side could also be effectively cropped right of the white building.  Does this help?
Len Staples

[berbig]

Most of the suggestions I have received think I should crop some of the bottom. I absolutely agree. My thinking was to have some "lead in lines" from the bottom left corner, but I can see now that a tighter crop is better. I also tend to crop my pictures to match standard frame sizes, but that is of course not the best way to crop.
Staples explanation about what happens when putting a live subject in the picture is really a good advice. The more I think about it, the more I agree.

Thanks to all of you: This is really very good help  

Bernt

[popnfresh]

There are two problems going on here. Compositionally, the rocky bank on the right occupies way too much space and does nothing for the photograph. I'd prefer to see the fisherman in the foreground instead of the gravel.

But the larger issue, in my opinion, is that the entire photo, except for the mountain ridge and sky in the background, is in the shade. This makes for flat, uninteresting lighting and an impossible metering problem: you can't expose the foreground properly without burning out the mountains and sky and you can't expose properly for those without losing the foreground.

I think you need to go back there and shoot the scene with the sun at a lower angle behind you and position the camera so there's less of the bank and more interesting stuff in the foreground. It's a nice location, and I think there are better photos waiting to be taken of it.

[larkvi]

But the larger issue, in my opinion, is that the entire photo, except for the mountain ridge and sky in the background, is in the shade.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the main problem is not that most of the photo is in the shade, but that the logical centre of attention, the town and the fisherman, are in the shade, between two bright areas. I think it is am important distinction, because I don't care if 90% is in the shade if the right part is in the light. Problem here is that the wrong parts are in the light, jumping the eye right over the town.

The first point is dead on.