10 replies to this topic

[Marco Lanciani]

1


2


3

[Colin-M]

How about #1 with the bottom 25% cropped off?

[Lars Hansen]

Marco - I like the subject and also the composition, but ... to me the sky doesn't have much to offer to the compositions and in contrast to Colin I would try to reduce the sky or maybe even remove it. Not an expert, but just my immediate reaction when I see the pictures - what works for me is the foreground and the background is the water with rocks. Maybe the foreground gets too dominating that way(?) in #1 and #2..

For the same reason I like #3 most.

Edited by Lars Hansen, 19 August 2012 - 16:29 .

[nfoto]

It is kind of difficult to assess the "best" composition unless the aims of the capture are provided.

With that caveat in mind, to my eye #2 works quite well after some cropping at the top. Thus, the featureless sky either needs *something* (a lens flare, a passing seagull, the shadow of a man) added to it, or failing that to have its size reduced.

[Marco Lanciani]

Thanks for your comments.
So, here is a retake of #1 (which is now squared) and #2 (only cropped out the sky) based on above suggestions.

1a


2a

[nfoto]

Both need the presence of the horizon for a perceived full depth.

[ebswift]

I like #3, but for my personal taste I'd like to have it wider - maybe slightly panoramic to the left & right to help give it depth. A wider lens would also do the same thing - I don't have one of those, so I'd go for the slight panorama. Gives good food for thought on composition though. If one could perceive what the majority of people liked in images, it would be a breeze to shoot well and make a living from it. I guess that's what really sets some photographers apart.

[Marco Lanciani]

Here's take 3:

1b


2b


... even though I don't dislike at all the version with no horizon.
Bjørn, you asked about the aim... ehm... I'm exploring Fine Art Photography.
I know, it's a long road and I hope to be on the right path.

Troy here are two panoramic versions:

3a


3b


I'm still not sure but maybe I prefer 3a. As Lars was saying it makes the bare log in the foreground less dominating... I don't know if this is wrong or right but gives me a better feeling when I look at the photo.

[nfoto]

I asked that question because it is crucial to the entire process of getting successful in any branch of photography. You cannot get good pictures simply by pointing the camera and clicking the release. Go into a dialogue with the subject, ask what it means to you, and debate with yourself how it best should be approached in order to provide the information and composition you envision. Doing the framing after you have taken the picture rarely gives the result you want. The thinking has to be done first, then capture the subject.

Many people don't like to hear such things as they just want to know "how to" take a good photograph and don't think intellectual effort and commitment have to be put into the process, only technique. However, technique will only take you this far and never can breathe life into an image.

[Marco Lanciani]

Thanks Bjørn. I think I got the sense of your words: following my thoughts.

While it wasn't my main target, in the end I must admit to myself I just took wanted to take some fine pictures and maybe I did, but missing my aim, that was to catch the sense of the place, which makes the landscape unique and likely which makes the capture a Fine Art photo…

I must be missing a lot of that intellectual effort and commitment needed in the process of creating Art, even though I'm sure I didn't just release the shutter…
I know the place, I do planned the shooting and I walked a lot around the log looking for that composition I envisioned the moment I spotted it on the shore (and before you ask, NO, not in the water… I think because what I envisioned was towards the sea, not toward the land…).

Now, getting back to that day I know I was too much in hurry just thinking at something else and I failed on understanding that sense of the place: in fact I guess this is why I ended up with more than the three pictures shown here, none of which seem to communicate what brought me there.

Most of the time a scene is interesting other times it is breathtaking but even this doesn't make necessarily a photo of that scene a piece of art…
Had I found that envisioned image I guess I didn't feel the need to keep on taking pictures just moving around and back and forth, with slight movements, looking for something I already achieved.
Yet, that said, I think the same subject has always the potential to offer multiple points of view even with the same aim in mind: Fine Art Photography, in this case. Don't you?

By the way, I think taking multiple pictures around the subject as I did on this shooting could still be a good exercise in the process of learning composition, to study on it and discuss it about, and than, hopefully, also Fine Art Photography.

[ebswift]

I do like the panoramic versions, great stuff! I often visualise what I want to capture before I even leave the house. Though because I'm only a novice I take a number of shots with different settings to ensure I capture what I visualised. When I review the images I can instantly see the image I was looking for. Often it won't be just one image, but a set. I take the special images and do my digital work on those.