Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: churly on May 21, 2012, 06:48:09 am
-
I am curious about how folks react to the hardness of both the light and the water.
1.5 s exposure.
(http://churly.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v53/p577538394-4.jpg)
-
It seems to me that the seagull is the star of this image, but as is, it blends in too closely with the background. I think the image would benefit by showcasing the seagull better. I'm not affected one way or the other by the "hard light" or the water, and would never have paid much attention had you not brought it up.
-
The gull might be the star of this photo but I find that after a short while, the illuminated rock/water at the bottom left steals the focus from the gull. It's almost like two images in one.
-
The gull might be the star of this photo but I find that after a short while, the illuminated rock/water at the bottom left steals the focus from the gull. It's almost like two images in one.
Same thought.
-
It seems to me that the seagull is the star of this image, but as is, it blends in too closely with the background. I think the image would benefit by showcasing the seagull better. I'm not affected one way or the other by the "hard light" or the water, and would never have paid much attention had you not brought it up.
Same thought + another 1
-
Thanks all for the comments. It's funny, my focus was on the light and water and that's why I was asking about it. I was viewing the gull as just another element that backstops the immediate foreground but not really picking up on the competition between them. Seems pretty dense of me when I think about it.
-
Thanks all for the comments. It's funny, my focus was on the light and water and that's why I was asking about it. I was viewing the gull as just another element that backstops the immediate foreground but not really picking up on the competition between them. Seems pretty dense of me when I think about it.
And I agree with your original assessment. My eye bounces to three areas of light, in essence scanning the picture space. There are dangers in over-analyzing pictures. We could all end up contradicting ourselves. It is pretty good the way it is. Though I can crop the image seven ways to Sunday, it would just be an alternate view that would emphasize one part over another. And btw, because the water is relatively fast for the moving water and the light golden, I find the image has a soft quality not a hard one.
-
Funnily enough I think I would take the gull out. His head is lost in the lighter background and seems sort of a reduntand accessory...and without the narrative of the bird the tones of the water and the shape and textures of the wave and rocks are far more prominant.
Julie
-
Nope, I like this shot pretty much as it is; the bird's even looking in the right direction! so what the hell do you guys want?
Were it mine, and I wish it were, I'd darken the sky quite a lot down to around the bird itself; the interest for me is all in the foreground, with the bird doing its bit as subtle scene-setter and flavouring. I don't consider the light hard at all - in fact I think it beautifully soft and just the sort of atmosphere in which I'd love to shoot girls.
Bingo!
Rob C
-
Churly, I think its just about perfect!