James Lemon
Well-known member
![i-4PkC3Cz-L.jpg](/forums/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lensmolephotography.com%2Fphotos%2Fi-4PkC3Cz%2F0%2FL%2Fi-4PkC3Cz-L.jpg&hash=8fa26d506a17c8f9983b7ec9215f9dd8)
I find the picture captivating and so strongly put together that it can withstand a number of variations in image area. From the moment I saw this picture earlier today, I've been wondering if it would be "improved" with a crop. Well it can't be "improved", but changed to equally impressive with a judicious crop, not because it "needs" change, but because this robust image provides so many obvious choices to its presentation, each with different meanings.
And what about expanding the area by using a wider lens? I think I would like to see a bit more of the top of the clouds and, possibly, on the area on the left of the picture. I wonder what is that dark element there.
Jim,
I find the picture captivating and so strongly put together that it can withstand a number of variations in image area. From the moment I saw this picture earlier today, I've been wondering if it would be "improved" with a crop. Well it can't be "improved", but changed to equally impressive with a judicious crop, not because it "needs" change, but because this robust image provides so many obvious choices to its presentation, each with different meanings.
I've been thinking a lot about this picture all day. It works fine, but it's a great excuse for discussing the effect of weighting foreground and sky proportions versus the center of the image where people are occupied in their activities.
1. With equal weighting on sky and foreground, the folk become a detail, not so important, but part of the character of the place, without getting to them.
2. Cropping of the upper sky really strengthens the beach sloping towards us. The people are a little more significant, but still, not comparison to the beach. Optimizing the shading contrast of the sand curves would take this idea further.
3. Alternatively can crop the beach and make the overcast sky the main feature and then the denizens become the last activity before it's dark.
4. But we can do something to make the beach folk the main element of a wonderful panorama by cutting away sky and beach from above an below.
Some of us compose on the beach and go home with no thought to changing their minds. It would be some kind of impurity or sacrilege, LOL!! For pictures that I didn't actually sketch out in advance, I feel free to make drastic changes to the composition at home. So what are your thoughts on the dilemma of being true to one's feelings and original intent? Or do you allow yourself to do whatever comes to mind once one is viewing the picture, as if for the first time, back in a comfortable chair, drink in hand, wondering what new discoveries there are to make in the scene?
Asher
And what about expanding the area by using a wider lens? I think I would like to see a bit more of the top of the clouds and, possibly, on the area on the left of the picture. I wonder what is that dark element there.
James, I find this to be a dramatic capture. Pulling the viewer in towards the long sweep of the coast and the figures. The sky adds to the strong graphic illustration of the scale.
Thanks for sharing it with us.
Thank you for your feedback Jerome! A wide angle lens may have provided a little less tension, however, I use a 50mm lens and some other element in the foreground might offer some type of anchor but I don't see anything in this frame that would warrant a lower horizon line as it would take depth away from the image.
Let me suggest something else then. This is an academic discussion, obviously, because you are not going to drive back to the same place and reshoot the image. You would not have the same clouds, anyway. Still, you may find the discussion stimulating.
You may have noticed that I did not suggest to remove part of the sandy beach. I think that you are right and that the lines created by the light in the sand are a great feature to lead the eye to the subject.
But then: what is the subject? My eyes are lead to the lines of people and end on the last object. Alas, I cannot determine what it is and it is next to this dark sand patch which I don't understand. What would happen if the image simply ended on the last walker?
Then, there is this thing with the sand structures which lead the eye and the conflicting clouds. You rightly chose the sand and cut the clouds. Could you have just kept the underside of the clouds and cut in the middle? Would it have avoided to show us the start of the top of the clouds so that we would not be distracted by it being unfinished?
Last: about the sand. If we want a bit less clouds and won't change the focal length, we will get more sand. What would have happened if you had moved back a bit? What would have happened if you stayed on the spot but lowered your camera to the ground or hold it higher up above your head?
I do like that version better. It has more power.Thank you for your feedback Jerome! You have made some very good points! Does this cropped version look more complete to you?
![]()
I did not suggest crops, because I am not really sure that they are the best tools to learn about this particular pictures. But if you like to discuss that particular crop, I would say that it changes the effect of the clouds considerably. Now they look as if they press down the people on the beach. I would have cropped a bit higher to keep as much as the white part of the clouds. In the original picture, there is a dark opening in the white cloud at the top left of the frame. This is the feature that I would have cropped away, nothing more. With that dark feature, the clouds are "unfinished", the eyes is sent outside of the frame and we wonder about how the top of the clouds would be. Without that feature, there is no detail in the cloud highlights that leads our eyes outside of the photograph and the cloud is complete.
How tiny features are seen and lead the eye of the viewer in a photograph is interesting. We have had a thread about it by Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee. Maybe you would be interested in the discussion we had at the time.
Any more than you neeed this sentence to be spelled correctly in order too under stand it.
Hi, James,
I do like that version better. It has more power.
Nice job.
Best regards,
Doug
No two people will look at an image the same way regardless of how one has constructed it nor will they have the same experience of it. There is no need to see more of or less of the clouds and there is no need to know what is at the extreme left of the image.
Any more than you neeed this sentence to be spelled correctly in order too under stand it.
And what about expanding the area by using a wider lens? I think I would like to see a bit more of the top of the clouds and, possibly, on the area on the left of the picture. I wonder what is that dark element there.
Hi, James,
I believe you have misspeld "spelt".
Best regards,
Doug.
' misspeld '? Late night out my friend?
Hi, Mohammad,
It was part of the joke!
Best regards,
Doug
Being thick, is my only excuse.