Hills, Points and Capes

[Arlen]

This is another image from my recent outing on Oregon's central coast, taken near the end of the same day that the early-morning "Piercing the Ether" was captured, but a few miles farther south. Describing the location becomes almost a geography lesson on coastal naming conventions:  shot from Strawberry Hill, looking north towards Captain Cook Point and Cape Perpetua.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Fine catch, nicely processed.

[Tony Jay]

Fine catch, nicely processed.

+1

Tony Jay

[maddogmurph]

I like the cloud movement and the light on the water.

[Bob_B]

+1 Nicely done.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Coastal sceneries are one of my favourite subjects. Like this one very much.

[mbaginy]

+2 Nicely done.

Everything's flowing!  Nice.

I'd try to darken that light diagonal streak at the bottom righthand corner though.  It's a bit distracting.

[francois]

Wonderfully smooth, the sky is incredible.
Well done.

[stamper]

I totally agree with the previous posts.

[SanderKikkert]

Nothing much to add other than: magnifficent shot and B/W conversion 

[stamper]

fwiw I find the strips of cloud completely distracting and don't look at the rest of the picture.

Isaac you meant that ..... you didn't look ..... at the rest of the picture? You are supposed to look at all of it before making up your mind. That is how an image is critiqued. The image is a long exposure and that is why the there are "strips of cloud" You are the odd one out in the thread about not liking it.

[SanderKikkert]

I really feel the need to quote a line Slobodan quotes sometimes: when everybody thinks the same..nobody's thinking.

Personally i find Isaac's remark valuable, and looking at the image again with his remark in mind I see what he means. This means I might have been to fast and didn't look at the image carefully enough first time round, (apologies to the submitter of the image i I did), this might mean that it still is a very nice image all in all, yet Isaac noticed something which is there in the image and worth mentioning.

It certainly does noet mean imo that Isaac did not look carefully.

The whole point of critiqueing is conveying your thoughts and feelings honestly to hopefully help the person who submitted an image to learn new things and/or better his photography skills or photographic choices.

This also means that on images which are already very good there are still points of critique possible and necessary.

my 2 cents, Best Regards, Sander

[stamper]

I really feel the need to quote a line Slobodan quotes sometimes: when everybody thinks the same..nobody's thinking.

Personally i find Isaac's remark valuable, and looking at the image again with his remark in mind I see what he means. This means I might have been to fast and didn't look at the image carefully enough first time round, (apologies to the submitter of the image i I did), this might mean that it still is a very nice image all in all, yet Isaac noticed something which is there in the image and worth mentioning.

It certainly does noet mean imo that Isaac did not look carefully.

The whole point of critiqueing is conveying your thoughts and feelings honestly to hopefully help the person who submitted an image to learn new things and/or better his photography skills or photographic choices.

This also means that on images which are already very good there are still points of critique possible and necessary.

my 2 cents, Best Regards, Sander


I think you miss the point. Firstly he is entitled to his opinion if it is a reasonable one. Reasonable is subjective. Are you saying that you didn't notice .... strips of cloud completely distracting? That was the only point he made. There wasn't - imo - a valuable point to be made because in a long exposure image you expect the clouds to be blurry or whatever description is apt? By his own admission he didn't look at the rest of the image. Now I don't know how somebody can only look at part of an image and not the rest. To be honest his criticism isn't "valuable" but dismissive?

[SanderKikkert]

I think you miss the point. Firstly he is entitled to his opinion if it is a reasonable one. Reasonable is subjective. Are you saying that you didn't notice .... strips of cloud completely distracting? That was the only point he made. There wasn't - imo - a valuable point to be made because in a long exposure image you expect the clouds to be blurry or whatever description is apt? By his own admission he didn't look at the rest of the image. Now I don't know how somebody can only look at part of an image and not the rest. To be honest his criticism isn't "valuable" but dismissive?

Yes, I am saying, allthough I watched the image at home the first time on a less contrasty screen, that I missed that the sky was possibly distracting. The second time I looked at the image it was here at work on a much more contrasty screen which emphasizes the contrast in the sky. 
I don't find Isaac's criticism 100% dismissive, allthough he missed or forgot the 'rule' that you always have to mention a positive point as well. 
It's just that allthough he may not be the most likeable person he certainly makes very good remarks from time to time and in this case he might have pointed me in the direction that on this particular image maybe, just maybe, the long exposure wasn't long enough so that the sky would have been softer, guys like Michael Kenna and Micheal Levin frequently go up to half an hour to several hours if needed.

I apologise if this may seem to be more about me personally looking at this image (images in general) than about the critique of this image and the reaction Isaac's remark sparked, but I felt the need to write this.

Kind Regards, Sander
 

[stamper]

stamper attacks comments I make -- don't respond to those attacks, don't feed trolls, it's disruptive.

No attack Isaac. A reply to the comment you made. Why don't you try and respond in a civil manner?

[Arlen]

Thanks to all for taking the time to view and comment. Having been away for a few days though, I didn't realize that this image had become such a fomenter of controversy. My apologies for that.

[Isaac]

You and your picture were innocent bystanders to someone's storm in a teacup, my apologies for that.

[stamper]

Isaac I take it that you are apologising for yourself? Nine members praising the image and you were the dissenting poster.

[Jeevz]

Back to the image

I like it, and the cloud movement is beautiful.  But I think that the bright areas in the top right are a little distracting.  I wonder if adding a slight controlled vignette might help focus the eye on the foreground.  Also I would prefer a little more contrast in the sky - maybe burning some of the clouds.  But that is just my preference.

Nice shot.

[Arlen]

Thanks, Jeevz. After looking over this image again (sometimes it helps to let a little time go by, and then reexamine with fresh eyes), you and Mike D.B. may have good points about those bright areas. I'll play with it some more and see if damping them down a bit yields an improvement.