Low Tide at the Marshes

[TheApprentice]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22583619@N06/6721834357/sizes/l/in/photostream/



I went for a walk with my new 5D2, and it seems to have given me a boost!
any Critique and Comments are welcome...

[Isaac]

There's not much light - there's not a consistent tone picking out the bend of the water, there's not light brightening the marsh grass.

There's not much of a bend visible from that height, it looks like the waterway bends back again in the distance but we'd need to be 10' or 15' higher-up, above the grasses, to see.

[churly]

Based on the history of this type of discussion in previous threads, I'm probably going to regret this comment but I think the situation warrants it -

My comment is addressed to the critique offered up by Isaac.  First I will warrant that the OP did ask for critique and that the critique offered up addressed valid issues with the image.  However, the style of the critique can stand some critique itself.  As a university professor I regularly evaluate the work of others either through peer review for publications or evaluation of students.  It has consistently been my experience that critique offered in a constructive and supportive fashion is far more effective than the style offered in the critique in question.  I don't see any need for what comes across as unwarranted arrogance in any critique.  There is absolutely nothing real to be gained from it for any one.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... critique offered in a constructive and supportive fashion is far more effective than the style offered in the critique in question.  I don't see any need for what comes across as unwarranted arrogance in any critique.  There is absolutely nothing real to be gained from it for any one.

I beg to disagree.

Far be it from me to defend Isaac, as I am sure he can do it perfectly well himself, but every time I hear those odes to "constructive" criticism, I cringe (to express it politely). Every criticism is useful, thus constructive. The burden though is on the recipient to understand it properly. My people have a saying that even a mosquito buzz is music for a smart head (i.e., being able to detect even the minute amount of useful information in anything).

Lets not forget the medium, i.e., internet forum. This is not an academic environment and there is no obligation on its participants to provide lengthy, well reasoned and written opinion. This is a free forum, where everybody and anybody, for better or worse, can pitch in, as much or as little they know or have time.

"It sucks" is a perfectly valid criticism. So is "nice!", "+1", "does nothing for me", "bravo!", etc. Just do not fall into clinical depression or quit your day job yet. Put it (as the recipient) into a context. It simply means there are folks who do/do not like it, and they either did not have the time to elaborate, or do not feel eloquent enough to do so, or it is not that worth elaborating. You, as the recipient, pay attention to how many of those comments you get, from whom (i.e., credibility-wise), etc.

[churly]

I am afraid that I am equally irked by comments like this.  It is true that this is an internet forum but I can in no way see how that relieves me or you or anyone from the responsibility for providing reasoned comment with some level of respect for the person toward whom the comment is directed.  Pleading lack of time, patience or eloquence is a pure cop out.  Shoveling the responsibility for communication completely onto the recipient is as well.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I can in no way see how that relieves me or you or anyone from the responsibility..

I strongly believe in freedom (of speech), thus do not like when someone tells me what I should or should not do (or have "responsibility" to). This is stated in general terms, not directly to you.

Isaac, in this case, took the time and trouble to comment with things that are apparent/important to him, and that should be respected and appreciated. It provides orders of magnitude more usefulness than those who do not say a word (although it is a perfectly valid response, and speaks volume by itself).

Isaac at least provided something of value, however debatable that might be... you and I, however did not (to the OP... I hope our opposing views do contribute to the everlasting debate about critique in general).

[churly]

Freedom of speech - fair enough.  I happen to believe that rights most often carry responsibilities but I suppose the individual has to determine that for himself (general statement not directed at you).

Following from your argument - I certainly retain the right to critique the critique.  I don't see anyone giving up their day job because of that either.

[Ken Bennett]

Getting back to the photo, it's nicely framed, and I'm a sucker for shooting through stuff like the grass. Might have gotten even closer. It has a pleasant strong diagonal element. The light is nice but might have been better much later (or earlier) in the day. And I would burn down the sky a bit.

And I, too, just took advantage of the recent rebates to purchase a 5D2 for personal use. Nice camera. Very different from my big Canons at work and my little micro 4/3 system. Seems like a nice compromise, and the files are wonderful.

EDIT: I opened the image in Photoshop and note very small, very dark corners at the top - makes me wonder about vignetting from a filter or lens hood.

[Isaac]

... those who do not say a word (although it is a perfectly valid response, and speaks volume by itself).

Valid? Sure.
Speaks volumes? Perhaps it speaks volumes about the difficulty of reading photographs and saying what you see.

[Chairman Bill]

No one has a right to not be offended, so if this offends anyone, too bad, I don't care, and stuff responsibility 

If you have the opportunity to return to this site & reshoot, a couple of alternatives look as if they'll present themselves.. As it stands, I find the image a little flat & lacking in depth, even though there are some clues that indicate it. I also find the grass a distraction, when it could be a feature. I think this is because it covers part of the image on the right, but then dwindles away on the left. The river twists, potentially leading the eye into the image, but because you haven't actually captured that, the continuity breaks half way along.

My two alternatives include a more face-on shot, with the grass filling the foreground, the mud, river, and grass & hedgeline on the other side forming lateral bands, with a small strip (if that) of sky for some contrast. The other requires you to move along the bank a little, bringing the stretch of water as it bends, more fully into view. Again, I'd try to make the foreground grass more of a feature (it just seems to be in the way in this image), and unless the sky demands inclusion (sunset, or dawn light on clouds, that sort of thing), I'd keep the sky element to a minimum.

[Isaac]

... what comes across as unwarranted arrogance ...

You don't point to a single specific aspect of what I actually wrote to support your contention.

Have you considered that your "critique" may come across as pompous and arrogant?

[luxborealis]

In a similar vein to "it's not what you got, it's what you do with what you got" (pardon the horrendous grammar of that idiom) there is also the saying:

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Thanks, churly for trying to bring some standards of communication to what should be a supportive and enriching forum.

Now that that's out of the way...

Apprentice - I would call this a very good "sketch"; i.e. with the shape of the s-curve, the colour contrast of grasses, sky & water and good composition, it has all the makings of a very good photograph. But photographs depend heavily on lighting: if you were to return to the same place when the sky has more drama (billowy clouds and/or early morning, late evening warm light), you might be able to push the achieve a more compelling photograph. Throw in a dinghy or a great blue heron and bingo, you have a winner!

[Isaac]

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

That's an example of innuendo. I don't think there's much praise worthy about that.

[Justan]

Based on the history of this type of discussion in previous threads, I'm probably going to regret this comment but I think the situation warrants it -

My comment is addressed to the critique offered up by Isaac.  First I will warrant that the OP did ask for critique and that the critique offered up addressed valid issues with the image.  However, the style of the critique can stand some critique itself.  As a university professor I regularly evaluate the work of others either through peer review for publications or evaluation of students.  It has consistently been my experience that critique offered in a constructive and supportive fashion is far more effective than the style offered in the critique in question.  I don't see any need for what comes across as unwarranted arrogance in any critique.  There is absolutely nothing real to be gained from it for any one.

Thanks for the post. It is a valid reminder that civility and respect are important components of not only a critique but of communication in general. Often after one of these posts people tend to become more congenial for a while.

For the OP, as suggested the basic subject in this image is a good one but a little tweaking will help improve it. I especially like the idea of a higher vantage point but dang if isn’t a PITA to get an 8’ or 12’ ladder into a place such as this. However, sometime that’s needed to get the capture! I think were the tide higher you’d be able to capture more of the sky in the water. Combine that with a time of day that adds some sunrise/sunset colors and you’d have a fine end result.

[rambler44]

I would pay close attention to the comments of Chairman Bill and luxborealis.  They would take my observations a bit further, their expertise more experienced than mine.  I find large in-focus objects in the foreground (the marsh grasses) effective ways of adding perspective and depth.  The curve of the canal and lines of the marsh do lead nicely into the background.  The reflection of the sky in the water helps give importance to the middle layer.  The brown tones of the marsh are pleasing, but others, too, have noticed the washed out blue of the sky.

Evening and low light over marshes can be wonderful.  Keep going back to that area at different times of day if possible to see the different lighting.  The changing tides will change the scene, too.  I spent some time in my youth flubbing around South Carolina marshes....wonderful places to be!

Isaac was a bit blunt, but I think he made an interesting comment.  You might try different angles of your view of the marsh.  Maybe raise the camera higher, holding it up over your head or holding it up with the legs of a tripod, to see if you could get the bend in the canal.  Or go the other way.  Get down as low as you can for yet another point of view.  Good things to try as you "work a subject".

[shaunw]

Nice shot... i like the cloud in the river and the comp works well except for one key point....you've got the reeds interfering with the key focal point of the scene, that wonderful bend in the river and the cloud below. Have you had a look at a conversion??? such shape texture and detail may work well in mono?

good effort mate

[Michael H. Cothran]

It is a nice shot, and processed decently, although I do believe the sky could use a little work - adding some contrast, darkening the cyans a little, etc. Compositionally, it doesn't work too well for me - the close range marsh get in the way, and the fact that some of the reeds are blurry make them even more distracting. I also believe you are shooting from too low an angle, especially for the bend in the creek or river. Perhaps if you had stepped a few feet beyond the reeds, more towards the water. Overall, I think you can do better, and wish you good luck with your new camera.

[PhotoEcosse]

Given the title of the photograph, I might have been inclined to have looked for a camera position that accentuated both the elements relating to "low tide" and to "marshes" The effects of sky on mud in estuarine marshes can be quite dramatic, especially in the 40 minutes before sunrise or the 40 minutes after sunset. I think you have a great location to return to and explore the possibilities even farther. I am not sure where in the world you are but, on the east coast of Scotland we have similar landscape which provides rich possibilities for this sort of shot.

Look forward to seeing another from the same location in due course. Keep at it.

.