Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on June 26, 2017, 02:49:37 pm
-
Thoughts?
Jeremy
-
Interesting but I'm not too sure about the large portion of foreground. The shape of the wave is perfect.
So, I like it but feel like it could be even better.
-
Offering up a counter-opinion, to me, the foreground is the most interesting part of the photograph. I find the pattern and tones of the foreground more interesting than the water.
Wacky thing about photography. Two people can look at the same photograph and have different opinions and both are right.....and wrong. ;D
-
Offering up a counter-opinion, to me, the foreground is the most interesting part of the photograph. I find the pattern and tones of the foreground more interesting than the water.
Wacky thing about photography. Two people can look at the same photograph and have different opinions and both are right.....and wrong. ;D
With the "splash" title, I imagined that Jeremy was more interested in the wave. But I'd like to add to my above comment that the part that bothers me is the lightest band of rocks at the bottom of the frame. They look a bit out of focus but then, I have to admit that my eyes have seen better days and I'm still under treatment for the next few days. I'll revisit the shot when I'll have my right eye with me again.
-
The foreground rocks do look soft, but I don't mind that at all. Their softness, colour, and the leading lines of the overall rock foreground leading to the waves all work very well for me. The "push" to the waves seems to give the waves the energy they display, which ties it all together.
I think it would also work with the left cropped such as to make it a square format.
-
It certainly ticks all the photographic boxes for timing, composition and processing (although a -0.5 or -1 grad mask from the bottom would help to "contain" the image). However, it's not making an emotional connection, for me anyway. It could be the lack of a connection (strong leading line, for e.g.) between the eroded columnar basalt in the foreground and the wave, itself. I know this is along a coastline, so the two are instrinsically connected, but photographically they are not.
One might ask, "Do they need to be connected?" No, I suppose not, but it would feel more "comfortable" if there was a connection and, because the photo appears to be more decorative landscape than cutting-edge visionary (no slight intended), it would make sense to connect the two.
-
I hate to say it, but I'm with Terry on this one, Jeremy. It's technically excellent -- the kind of thing driving Brooks Jensen mad, since it no longer requires advanced equipment and hours in the darkroom to produce. (Obviously you must have a "good" camera.) But beyond technical excellence it's pretty ho-hum. All it tells me is that a wave splashed on the rocks. That's not a message I need to internalize.
-
As an alternative to a stronger lead in you might consider pulling in closer to the wave to make it fill more of the space. You would still have room to take in the detail of some of the basalt columns in the foreground.
Chuck
-
Thank you, all. As often before, one of my less-than-first-rate photos has produced an interesting discussion. It's much more educative than "fine shot".
Jeremy
-
It's still a better splash photo than any I've tried, and I've tried many times.