I was at the beach a couple weeks ago to watch the surfers and stayed long enough to get some nice late afternoon light. I wasn't staying long enough to have brought my tripod or anything, but figured I'd shoot a little before it got too dark, so none of these shots were planned, but they all seem to have just enough charm to them to consider for my 2012 portfolio. I'd like to see if there's some agreement on if there's one that uniformly "better" than the other.
1. My criticism here was that the surfers are plainly visible in the surf, but I couldn't stop down enough to make them a little more identifiable
2. I was in the midst of changing locations and saw this couple had just finished climbing the rock and were watching the sunset - they turned to embrace and I figured this was the time, despite the fact I didn't have to switch to my standard or tele lens. I wish I could have been closer.
3. This was the last 5 minutes of the day where I could get a good exposure on the foreground. Probably the best technical result of the afternoon, but the weakest comp.
I prefer #2, 1, and 3 in that order. Not knowing what they are, I do not think the surfers or couple add anything to the images - so the purpose or intent of the images seems at odds with what I see.
In part, I think this is another example of being versus communicating being via the image - a challenge to say the least.
Bob Jarman wrote:
I prefer #2, 1, and 3 in that order. Not knowing what they are, I do not think the surfers or couple add anything to the images - so the purpose or intent of the images seems at odds with what I see.
In part, I think this is another example of being versus communicating being via the image - a challenge to say the least.
My opinion,
Bob
Thanks Bob - there wasn't any real message in these images, so I hope you didn't lose any sleep over it! Ha.
#1&3 - The problem I have with these are they create a strong leading line to nowhere and nothing interesting, except out the top of the photo.
#2 - Here the the leading line has a focal point at the end of it, making the trip along it more visually rewarding. But the bright sun to the left creates a competing center of interest creating a ping<>pong conflict of where to look. The leading line pulls you to the figure, the contrast of the sun pulls you off the focal point. In terms of relative attractiveness strong tonal contrast usually trumps leading lines.
I'm not suggesting you try to edit #2 like this to improve it, only to illustrate what to look for in the future when composing this type of shot. What I did is move the sun behind the focal point at the end of the leading line and the brightest area in the entire image (the tonal focal point) are in sync not competing in pong<>pong fashion. Often the location doesn't allow for that alignment at sunset, but that's the ideal type of alignment of leading lines and contrast gradients you want to train your brain to look for...
Also note that by toning down the sky and beach on the left and lightening the rocks in the foreground and right I've minimized the leading line of the beach / water and replaced it with a more dominant contrast gradient that will invite the viewer to scan over the more interesting rocks and connect more strongly with the path leading in from the right the focal point subject took to get where he is...
I'm with the others.
First, on quick look, seems technically the best. Flare is a real problem in the other two and doesnt add to the image.
If I were working the first image, I'd clone out the surfers. Too far, too small, dont really add to the image. Instead, I'd make the image about the angling rocks, which have a strong dynamic pull to the left, then to the right and into the frame.
See what you think if you crop part of the sky out. Now its about the lines of the rocks.
See what you think if you, instead, crop from the bottom to above the lower right hand corner blackish rock. Now the image leads to the flaring son at the horizon. If you had some stronger element there the comp would work better.
