Old Pilings, Naples, Florida

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

...the next two Santos López...

For me the first one by Santos is more akin to how I would have composed it and therefore I have an automatic bias towards that image and would select it as being above the rest.

So after now reading your long and detailed reply (thanks for that BTW), are you saying that in retrospect you still prefer your composition over Santos's version? And if we can imagine for a moment that you could go back in time and retake it, would you now go for Santos's type of composition over your previous composition?

I know what it is like Slobodan to get carried away and to focus on the part of the scene, that at the time of shooting I think is the most important detail (the birds in this instance) and without too much consideration for the rest of the scene - we all do it. But isn't it good practice and arguably more satisfying artistically, if we can also take everything else into account within the frame, so that all parts of the image are then composed deliberately and harmoniously wherever possible? If I have an image that has a problem to my eye, or that is pointed out to me, then being the pedant that I am, I know I will be unable to ignore it and so I will go back armed with this knowledge and re-shoot it and if I can't re-shoot it, then I will abandon that location for a while or even perhaps for ever.

However, I do whole heartedly agree with you about what your customers will be happy with and how that is invariably not going to be other photographers who are a very picky bunch indeed. 

Dave

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I will abandon that location for a while or even perhaps for ever...

I surely won't go back to the scene of the sand flies crime

[Peter McLennan]

I'm with Pete.  Best of the crop.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'm with Pete.  Best of the crop.

Pete Turner?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I used to tell photographers (if they were willing to listen of course), that I have found that any landscape or seascape scene usually works better, if I shoot it from an angle that avoids any touching edges anywhere along the horizon line wherever possible...

Let me turn the table, Dave, and ask you: why? Why do you consider that rule so critical? What is the esthetic reason for that? What happens when there is touching? (When did you become a supporter of the #MeToo movement, by the way? 😉 )

I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:

[rabanito]

I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:

Your book states that the image plays tricks with the eye that viewers are not aware at a conscious level.
It emphasizes the beautiful simmetry and simplicity and the clever use of red, yellow and blue.
No pelicans in sight. Nor scratches in the sky 

And, if you look attentively, there is a small distance (one pixel between the red and the black lines in the pic). That probably completes the trick,
Just my humble opinion

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Let me turn the table, Dave, and ask you: why? Why do you consider that rule so critical? What is the esthetic reason for that? What happens when there is touching? (When did you become a supporter of the #MeToo movement, by the way? 😉 )

You know what Slobodan if I am truly honest, I don't really know why I find it a problem, other than I know it jars with my feeling of a 'comfortable' composition, as it draws my eyes straight to it - although thinking about it now, I think it just might simply come down to creating a sort of clean separation of objects and so allowing the viewer to develop a feeling of completeness in what they are seeing.

And it is not only horizon lines, I try to find a composition of wherever I am and whatever I am photographing, where as many edge lines as possible do not touch, because, well it just feels right and comfortable. See the first attached image as an example of this thought process, whereby I didn't just try to choose the best composition I could find for the standing stones shot (although that certainly helps), it also had to be from an angle that provided me with as many none touching edges as I could find. In other words, with this shot there could only ever be one exact place I could stand and setup my camera, at just one height on the tripod and using only one focal length, that would allow me to capture this image in the way that I wanted to and  with as much separation as I could find. Composition selection for me just isn't a loose or random process anymore (if I can help it), because it has now evolved into a whole lot more anally retentive process than that and I was doing it well before it became a 'thing' 

I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:

I think Pete's shot is actually a good example of what I have just been saying above, whereby he has identified this touching line as a deliberate compositional choice, because he wanted to base the composition of his image on what I can only assume to be a 'Mondrian' design, which would then require that the lines did indeed touch and the image can then be seen as a two dimensional construct containing a series of blocks of colour etc, see second image.

So being aware of touching lines and the interaction of all object edges within the scene, allows me to make such choices, so my none touching lines rule (if you wish to call it that), means that by identifying such interactions and tensions, I can also choose to make lines touch if I want to, albeit not very often, see third image.

Dave 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... he has identified this touching line as a deliberate compositional choice... and the image can then be seen as a two dimensional construct containing a series of blocks of colour etc...

Exactly, Dave.

So is my choice deliberate, and for the same reason: it compresses the natural 3D scene into a graphic 2D blocks of colors (purple/blue and yellow/orange) where the uninterrupted horizon serves as a clear delineation between the blocks, with only the main focus (birds, not pilings) stand out (without piercing/interrupting the horizon line) You might have noticed that I have a penchant for graphics; I even have a section of my portfolio devoted to it: https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p631768190. Silhouettes, by default, are a 2D instrument just as well.

So, if one wants to create a sense of depth in a landscape, by all means separate the elements (as you nicely did in your first and second example). If you go for a graphic representation, however... (as your third example equally nicely demonstrates).

P.S. I've always been dreaming about coming to Scotland and shooting with you. Given you a-retentive approach, I'll have to reconsider

[Peter McLennan]

Pete Turner?

Yes. 

[Chris Calohan]

Let me turn the table, Dave, and ask you: why? Why do you consider that rule so critical? What is the esthetic reason for that? What happens when there is touching? (When did you become a supporter of the #MeToo movement, by the way? 😉 )

I have provided an opposite example, Pete Turner’s image, which deliberately breaks that rule, if there is any. I remember that image from my photographic bible, Perception and Imaging, where the author specifically addresses the issue and why it works. That image is even on the cover:

That book was in my student's library (6 copies) because it gave far more insight into "seeing" rather than just "looking."