Almost a great shot...?

Excuse the hyperbole but at least it got your attention.

There's much I like about this picture - and unusually I've found it's been growing on me since I posted a slightly different version of it in last week's comp. However, in the end I find myself concluding it's not quite got it.

To summarise what I like:

Obviously the light.

I like the rock in the foreground leading the eye into the picture, and the cliff further away continuing this movement.

I like the juxtaposition of the foreground rock and background rock and house.

There's decent sharpness - and the DA12-24, with which it was shot, has done an excellent job rendering the distant cliff as well as the prickly pear descending from the top (other lenses I've used to shoot these haven't done nearly as well).

Possible problems:

My first instinct is that it's the wrong way round - If the rock in the foreground was on the left this would be a much better photo because of the way the mind reads a picture.

My second that perhaps it is too tight on the top. If people think this I'm wondering if it's possible to duplicate a thin band of the sky from the top and add it to the photo. Is this technically feasible?

Of course there is the possibility that I've got things completely wrong and that the photo is actually pants.

Anyway, any forum wisdom much appreciated. I would ask for C & C, but I don't know what this stands for!




Shot with the K20D + DA12-24 @ 21mm, f13, 1/60, ISO 100

Processed from Raw in Silkypix, and in Paint Shop Pro X2 (Levels, some cloning, sharpening)

This differs from my Competition entry in that it's uncropped (changed my mind about this halfway through the week) and slightly more strongly sharpened.

Hi Doc! Here's my amateur 2 cents

I quite like the left half of the photo. The striation detail in the cliff looks good and the way it angles upwards adds a touch of geological interest. The house (shed?) makes me think - what is it for, does someone live there etc.

I'm not so keen on the right half. There's too much of it, perhaps more of a crop would work better (did you already try that in the comp?). I also think, although this could be a product of the crappy Dell analog LCD I am using at the moment, that there isn't enough detail in the sandy cliff face (lower right quarter of the photo) to hold my interest.

PS Couldn't tell if you were joking or not but I believe C&C stands for comments and criticism

Hi Andrew,
Here is some Critique and Comment for you.

There are some key futures in this scene that would make for some good pictures. But I like to know, what attracted you so much to decide to push the button.

You say you love the light. Well......1/3 of the scene is in shadow.

As a typical coastal scene backing off a bit to show more water would be a good idea. Give the picture a sense of space. Now the small blob of water is only only distracting to the scene.

The natural curve in the rock cries out for a much broader view. Again to emphasize and provide a more pleasing view.

The sky is cropped too severe and adding some, PP wise is not that hard, but would not help in saving this picture.

If I was in your shoes I would have aimed for a much more detailed view of the beautiful structure in the sand stone. This in combination with the warm evening light makes for a very interesting subject.(in this case being there at that moment)

To conclude: Think again in what you want to show to the viewer.
While often coastal landscapes gain by a broad and sweeping view, the close up approach can also do wonders.
Now you have grabbed a bit of everything and are rightfully asking the question: if the picture has got it.
I'll guess you know how I think of it. But I wasn't there (no emotional value) And are just looking at it as a viewer, and someone who does a bit of photography.

It may sound a bit harsh, but I'll know you know me well enough to judge my comment.

Martin.

No problem with your honesty Martin - that's exactly what I'm after.

To answer your queries...

This wasn't the only shot I took. There is a portrait one taken at the same time which you might prefer (not yet processed - may upload it tomorrow). Though it's not compositionally dissimilar. Actually, I've taken many photos of this cove from various angles at different times. And this day was no different. (Check out my entry in weekly comp 90 - which you won! - for another view).

There were reasons not to pan out - principally unsightly elements I didn't want in the frame. And for not moving in - there was a cliff a few feet in front of me, and I shot this @ 21mm on a 12-24, so going to 24 wouldn't have made enough difference. And I was with friends, so didn't really have time to change lenses (the sun was going down and we had an hour drive ahead of us - I just grabbed a few final shots before we left as the light was so good).

You and Tim seem to agree on the shaded area detracting from the shot. I find there's enough bathed in sunlight to not worry about the shaded area. But perhaps I should be thinking more carefully about this.

Hi Andrew, when you analyze the scene you see the parts A and B are bathing in sunlight. The biggest of those two (A) being the least interesting.(but very dominant) Not mentioning the grass creeping up from behind.
The most interesting part is B containing structure and sunlight.
Section C again isn't helping because of the lack of good light.
So the smallest part B is being pushed away in attention by A and C.
So which way you want to turn it, this one isn't working because there is to little left, to work with.

Martin.

Here's another shot taken just before the one above.




Have used a different film colour in Silkypix.

I reckon you'll prefer this but remain unhappy with the amount of shade, and the still quite large foreground.

Regarding the latter, I do think that it was necessary to include some foreground rather than panning out. This would work less well - and not only because of the need to include unwanted details.