Posted by Bryan Swan on February 6, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Want some input on this. I absolutely love how the atmosphere turned out, but I'm not terribly satisfied with the composition. What drew me to this particular spot is the pools in the immediate foreground and how the receding water was flowing into them. The rock behind it didn't really serve a purpose to the composition other than to break up the sand / waves, and I think that the rock runs all the way across the image is probably what's throwing me a bit.
This isn't a make or break issue, the image is still a keeper without question, I'm just trying to establish an approach for next time I'm at Seal Rock.
Posted by Mark Windom on February 6, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I agree with your own "criticism" on this one....the FG rock is too dominant. Perhaps if it had some more visible detail and was completely separated from the rocks behind it on the right it would help. I also think the purple cast in the immediate FG is a little strong. Regardless I wish it were mine. Nice stuff.
I think the very dark band of rock really kills any "flow" through the image. To be totally honest, the entire FG doesn't move me a whole lot, but the BG is quite nice. I get the feeling that I want to stand up to see over and past the middle rock, and forget about the FG. I think you called it correctly; great atmosphere, but a lacking composition.
Posted by Bryan Spahr on February 6, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I'd have to echo what has already been said a bit. I love the sky and mood here but the foreground is too dominant without bringing my eye all the way into the frame. I think getting some water movement from the foreground into the middle of the frame would make this an real winner. The way the sun is moving down into that low spot in the background rocks is awesome.
-Bryan
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on February 6, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Yea, the sky and BG rock - the bottom 1/2 isn't doing much for me either...... Amazing sky.
On a purely atmospheric level you hit the jackpot Bryan, but I gotta agree, those dark rocks interrupt the flow of the shot. If you could lighten them slightly and bring out more detail, I think it would help. Turning down the purple cast in the foreground would help as well.
The top part of the shot is definitely killer though!
My first thought when I saw this with your request for feedback was to somehow get a little higher perspective to separate the layers of rocks more. As it is, the bottom 1/2 looks dark and cramped, while the top 1/2 looks bright and spacious. Then I had to see what others said. I think I relate to what Aaron and Bryan said the most. Also, I don't mind the purple at all because it's the time of day for purple.
Now having said all that, I'd tune this a little as Mark and Joseph suggested and keep it around.
Posted by Bryan Swan on February 7, 2009 at 2:57 AM
Appreciate the input everyone. A couple things to note - my tripod was all the way up and I couldn't move any closer or else the feet would have been in the little pools and that would have cut the rounded bottoms of them off (which I wanted to keep), plus every now and then a big wave would hit and crash over that rock and I wanted to keep the camera as far back as I could (one of them did end up getting me up to my shins).
As I look at this again, I've had a couple thoughts. First, that if I could have caught a wave crashing over the rock, it would have solved all the composition problems. As it was, I think I was probably more concerned with establishing an object in the immediate foreground before the sun went completely behind the fog and I wanted to make sure I got a shot off. But looking at it again, I do see a pattern of sorts - of horizontal lines formed at differing distances; the background, midground and foreground rocks appearing to be similar in size but spaced out over some distance. Maybe I'm overthinking this and trying to convince myself this shot turned out better than it did purely on accident. Either way, still not throwing it out but not satisfied too.
Posted by John Williams on February 8, 2009 at 1:41 PM
The top part is killer, but I think the bottom becomes to cluttered with the smooth sand vs. the detailed rock. One or the other would be better, and a wave that partially obscured both would be best.
Posted by Marc Dilley on February 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Not much you can do about the barrier - still there's much appeal in the shot. Worth returning to the area for sure.
Posted by Austin Booth on February 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I agree that the atmosphere is great but the composition could be better. The main thing is that the rock basically cuts right through the middle of the frame. I think it would be better if you made a panorama of this using the top half of the frame. If there was any way to get to the rock behind the pools that may have made for a more interesting composition. I like the idea of having the pools in the shot they are quite dark and difficult to see and compositionally just don't seem to work. I really do love the top part of this shot though!
Posted by Cezar Mart on February 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I agree with previous comments: the dominant foreground rock kills the image. Plus the foreground sand and creamy water is unnecessary in this comp. In fact, there is something in this "creamyness" I don't like. Maybe its unattractive foamy texture, I don't know.
It would be a pretty image if there was no sand/foamy water in the front and some break in the fg rock to lead the flow to the background. Of course I don't expect to bring a dynamite to make this opening, so as a result the existing comp doesn't speak to me.
Posted by Edward Thomas on February 10, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Wider or narrower in the foreground. Include the whole circle or crop both sides.
The band of rock in the middle needs to be lighter.
The vignetting is a bit harsh.
There's a lot to shoot at seal rock, but it can be difficult separating the signal from the noise...
Posted by Bryan Swan on February 11, 2009 at 4:46 AM
Discussion
13 repliesThis isn't a make or break issue, the image is still a keeper without question, I'm just trying to establish an approach for next time I'm at Seal Rock.
Thanks.
I really hate that when I replace a photo on Flickr I can't update the URL here. NPN, update your software, this is ridiculous.
REPOST HERE:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan/3258428269/sizes/o/
-Bryan
The top part of the shot is definitely killer though!
Now having said all that, I'd tune this a little as Mark and Joseph suggested and keep it around.
As I look at this again, I've had a couple thoughts. First, that if I could have caught a wave crashing over the rock, it would have solved all the composition problems. As it was, I think I was probably more concerned with establishing an object in the immediate foreground before the sun went completely behind the fog and I wanted to make sure I got a shot off. But looking at it again, I do see a pattern of sorts - of horizontal lines formed at differing distances; the background, midground and foreground rocks appearing to be similar in size but spaced out over some distance. Maybe I'm overthinking this and trying to convince myself this shot turned out better than it did purely on accident. Either way, still not throwing it out but not satisfied too.
It would be a pretty image if there was no sand/foamy water in the front and some break in the fg rock to lead the flow to the background. Of course I don't expect to bring a dynamite to make this opening, so as a result the existing comp doesn't speak to me.
The band of rock in the middle needs to be lighter.
The vignetting is a bit harsh.
There's a lot to shoot at seal rock, but it can be difficult separating the signal from the noise...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan/3258428269/sizes/o/
Lightened the rocks and reduced the vignetting a tad. Also overwrote the original, so nothing ot compare it to. Meh.