What do you think?

I was leading a tour on the coast last week and actually got away for about a minute to go take a shot by myself. I've shot this location so much I figured what the heck, and just gave a different perspective a try. I didn't have a lot of time to work with it though. I'm wondering what you guys think about the composition, specifically. Doing anything for you? Thanks.

It's certainly a nice image though I don't feel it is up to par with your usual work. I sure as heck wouldn't trash it.

I think it's well balanced with the color and exposure. For my eyes, the foreground is a little distracting to me but it's most likely just in my head. I really like the movement in the water in the left bottom corner, but the right bottom corner doesn't compliment it very well but the reflection of the clouds in the still water adds to it. Not really sure how you could make it work without a small crop at the bottom but that could take away with the movement of the water.

Still a very nice shot, and I'm not one to nitpick composition. I've my share of crooked images and odd color casts, but still learning.

Marc,
I wonder if the lack of leading lines is what is off with this image. I automatically went to the background when I observed the image. I guess the rock on the right is kind of a line. Like Bret said, I wouldn't trash it. IMHO of course.

The lighting is pretty good, though the foreground seems to be a tad too light.

The problem I have is the conflict between the reflection and the wave coming in from the left. For some reason (and I haven't thought about it enough to properly articulate), it doesn't work for me.

As for compostion, I really like this wide angle perspective with strong contrasting diagonals coming from the rushing water and rock striations. However, the very small horizontal band of rock at the bottom of the frame messes with the diagonal continuity. When I remove the majority of this thin band my brain feels better. This is a very minor crop, but IMO it really improves continuity.

Awesome light but I agree with the above comments on composition...also It may just be me but it appears the horizons is tilting a bit upward toward the right.

Marc,
This is what happens when you set the bar high as you have. I really like this image a lot. Is it one of your top 20? probably not, but it's somewhat striking to me in that is simple, but one I looked at for quite sometime. JG

I think it is good technically, however, it doesn't move me emotionally. Somehow I cannot find any attractive object that I can identify with, an object that defines this photograph. I would put it this way: this image lacks a definition.
Generally your images inspire me, usually I look at them the way a student looks at the teacher, but this image is not one of them.

OK Marc, after a heavy dose of white processed sugar for breakfast, I've worked up the nerve to comment on this image. I've learned a lot from you about composition and exposure, so commenting on this is actually a learning step for me. For the most part this image works (I'd be overjoyed if it was in my portfolio). Colors are great, placement of the hill falls right in the groove. Maybe the horizon sags a little on the left but no real nit there. What bothered me was something about the FG, and I think I know what it is. Hold up a piece of paper over the image to eliminate ground at the very bottom (cover a good 20% of the bottom of the image) and see what you think. To me the comp gets very comfortable to view with the bottom dirt covered. It's funny, I usually like that very close FG element, but I think covering it works this time around. Ya think?

I think it's going to the recycle bin, personally. The comp wasn't doing a thing for me, so I just thought I'd see if it worked for anyone else. I can't find a crop I really like any better. The problem is the fact the water is leading in out of nowhere and the lines don't accentuate the focal point hill as much as they should.

> The problem is the fact the water is leading in out of nowhere

This is not a problem in my opinion. Good images are not those where something leads to something, but those that touch your emotion, those that have a message to say.
You can still have an image where "water leads to nowhere" and "lines don't accentuate the focal point", but still a masterpiece for other reasons. Or an image where composition is a mathematical perfection, but other than that it completely lacks the substance.
Composition and technique are only tools to achieve the message - they are not the message itself. Am I right?
How often do I get frustrated when I see a wonderful image that touch me to the very heart, and then underneath it I see smartass "critique" that some lines don't lead to something or similar nonsense? Photography is art not science.
Talking about this particular image - it's not the composition the image is missing, but the message itself.

A good composition invites the viewer in to enter and explore the image with greater ease than a more chaotic one, and is therefore always an asset. In a landscape this is more important than any other type of photography, since the subjects themselves don't relate as strongly to the viewer as say, a human face or figure, and becuase landscapes are so often a compellation of so many different things.
We rely on good composition to help overcome the limitations of describing a multi-dimensional world onto a two-dimensional medium, creating the depth and visual journey that will engage the them and enhance the emotional aspects. Emotional connection is often diminished in an image with too much going on. It's especially important in today's age of instant-everything to immediately engage the viewer, and invite them into the image.

In essence, I agree an emotional connection to the image is by far the most important thing in any art, but a good composition can only enhance this.

> In essence, I agree an emotional connection to the image is by far the most important
> thing in any art, but a good composition can only enhance this.

This is exactly what I tried to say :)
A good composition invites to the image, and then it is up to the image to offer the message. For example sometimes there is a good composition, it invites the viewer inside, but inside there is not much to offer.
Like a store: you see a pleasing entrance, you enter, and then you find very little inside. Or vice versa... :)
This actually can be translated to everything in life... :)))

But what is the message that is missing here? The message is up to the viewer to discover. A landscape can mean many things to many people. My work with the landscape is done in the interest of describing what I saw and felt to the viewer - but it's still up to them to make what they will of it.

Oops, I see you responded before I edited my own text.
OK, I will try to answer. The message I am looking in landscape images is something that grabs my emotion. Something that makes me want to be in that scene. Something dramatic, something cozy, something intriguing. Like an interesting texture, a feel of cold air, a dramatic light.
Once you published an image from Redwood Forest. Vertical powerful tree trunks with amazing evening light. Fantastic! Simple vertical trunks with light on them! It grabbed my heart. It was beautiful.
I was not even trying to find any potential distractions, I was not analyzing the mathematical compostion. I am sure that if somebody was looking then he would find this and that.
But that would be completely unnecessary. The image was striking with its message itself - the simple verticality of powerful trunks with captivating light.

This particular image is lacking this for me. There is no object on it that grabs my attention, that invites me there. An ocean shore like many on the Westcoast every day. The distant hill is uninteresting for me.
A while ago you had another picture with ocean waves on rocks. The texture of those waves and the whole water was captivating. There was beautifil texture and there was drama. Here I see only a quite boring hill and some rocks in the front.
I don't know, I speak for myself, it's subjective...

It's definitely subjective. I see we're thinking along the same lines here for the most part though, Cezar. I will say, that I believe your connection to the redwood image (one of my favorites this year for sure) was derrived from the composition first and foremost. The strong vertical trunks and the way I chose to showcase the beautiful light were the compositional aspects that endeared you to it. I couldn't have just walked up to the scene and pointed the camera at it - I had to compose! If the same shot had been taken in flat, boring light or if the trunks hadn't been defined enough to be well noticed, much of the emotional aspect would have been lost. It's hard to have one without the other - composition and emotional aspect, in the photography of landscapes.

Of course, Marc, I absolutely agree that the picture must be composed properly. You don't come to the scene and just shoot from wherever you stand. I don't question that. All I am trying to say that the good composition is only the beginning. The substance comes next.Or maybe the other way around - the substance comes first and the composition next. In landscape one cannot live without the other..
Nevertheless it was pure pleasure to have this discussion with you... :)

Man, a conversation like this reveals and teaches so much more than any slick-printed composition book at a major chain bookstore. Great thread.

I hope so. The more discussion on these discussion forums the better.

Biggest issues for me are 1) it seems a tad dark overall - the ground should have a bit more luminosity - it wouldn't be this dark if seen in person and 2) the water/rocks at the far left tell some sort of story but we are not included in it. So my attention goes there and that is not where I should be looking..... based on your standards, recycle bin or crop out the left and see if it works better.... but I don't think it will because the FG is slanted out to sea.....

Never seen this comp before...and I used to go here all the time...so either the changing of the earth has created a new area of exposed shore or I am dreaming.....

but as far as comp and color and exposure time....I think its fine!!!

This is a lovely image. I really like the play between stillness & motion ! The pink from the clouds gives everything a bit of a pop. I do find that when I remove about 10% at the bottom; I am more easily drawn into the image. Great work !!