Charles,
Thank you.
If I may have the temerity to suggest a crop, I would put the horizon closer to the top, since the featureless sky holds no interest.<Chas>
Please do have the temerity to criticize and suggest. I may not always agree, but sometimes such commentary does show me a better way. Even when it does not, I like to learn how others perceive differently.
That said, I will not be taking your crop suggestion.
As I mentioned, this picture is somewhat cropped. Thus, I had choices available as to what shape the picture would be, how tight it would be, what would be included, and what would be excluded. I did try various alternatives to this crop; and this remained how I like best.
I liked the 2:3 ratio shape best for this picture. I wanted the picture fairly close to the sun on the left and right edges, but with some comfortable breathing room. Now, the sun takes up a fairly narrow vertical strip, leaving a lot of room left in a 2:3 ratio shape. Keeping that shape, I could use any proportion of sky to ocean that I want, but any decrease in one makes a corresponding increase in the other. I find that the proportions of each that you see, here, work best, to my taste.
You say that the sky holds no interest. While there is a small bit more to look at in the ocean, the same could pretty much be equally said about the water as about the sky. That is: it could be said, if you choose to look at them as isolated elements. However, if you look at the totality of the picture, it becomes apparent that those large, blank areas do serve their purpose in the overall design. They present the sun in the most powerful way, and in the most unfamiliar, yet revealing, new way.
Or, at least, to my eyes.
______________________________
Andy,
Thank you.
Could you tell that that was the case before taking the pic, or did the detail only reveal itself through the 1200mm lens?
It was clearly visible to the people standing near me, watcing the sunset with their unaided eyes. I could see it clearly on my rear LCD screen.
Would make an interesting canvas print I would imagine.
I imagine it would. However, that would be playing upon its "painterliness". I think presenting it on photo paper, perhaps semi-glossy, would emphasize the fact that this is not a painting: that something actually looked like this. I think this would be to my preference.
_________________________
Georg,
Thank you.
You ARE a dangerous man to talk to Mike, LOL
He he he.
Wow. That looks useful. I bet you'll have a lot of fun with it. I look forward to seeing your ongoing results.
...I forgot to change the lense and leave that 3.2 kg behind in exchange for a different piece of glas. So I just made the most of it, and was very astonished about it. Hell, how can I ever live without such a glas now?
Ah, yes. Serendipity.
I also wonderd how much of the FG comes out in a print, talking about which, do you print yourself?
What is FG? Foreground?
Some foreground comes out in print, but it is not a splendid view of the foreground details. If I wanted more emphasis on the foreground details, in print, I am sure I could work the file to achieve this. However, I don't feel that a great look at the foreground would be a notable improvement; it may even be a distraction.
No, I prepare my files and have them printed.
I wonder what it does to the sensor…
Apparently, nothing. I do this a lot, and it hasn't seemed to damage the sensor, yet. Besides, even if it did affect the sensor a tiny bit: tools are meant to be used.
Nicholas, Cem,
Thank you.
And you're right. This one should definitely be in color.
