• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

No Title

James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
i-4PkC3Cz-L.jpg
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
James Lemon said:
i-4PkC3Cz-L.jpg
Click to expand...


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 and 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
 
fahim mohammed

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
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.
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Asher Kelman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
I will get back to you kind folks a bit later. I spent some time type only to get dumped out and it seems the browser that I am using doesn't allow copy and paste to back things up.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jerome Marot said:
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.
Click to expand...


Jerome,

How about, "can't see the woods for the trees", I missed out on the chopped off clouds as I was so intensely involved in the center of the picture! I'm so utterly amazed at how I can be so distracted from something so obvious, that it's now the first thing I notice! But I guess we suppress negative aspects of what we're enamored with.

I hope my attention is better when I drive, LOL!

Asher
 
James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
Asher Kelman said:
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
Click to expand...

Thank you for your interest Asher! The shot was hand held with minimal tweaking to straighten the horizon. I will crop any image any time and anywhere if I feel that it would improve the image in some way. I had been working with an outline in my mind for some time. I wanted to make an image with (figures of) people participating in some type of activity in an environment where the shapes of the people blended in and I wanted the image to offer a sense of movement as well. I was compelled to create the image because of the sand that was blowing towards me and that is what brought this image together for me.

I will have to work on the other images you mentioned another time.
 
James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
Jerome Marot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
James Lemon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
Jerome Marot said:
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?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback Jerome! You have made some very good points! Does this cropped version look more complete to you?

i-qLvzMn9-L.jpg
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
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.
 
James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
Jerome Marot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Here is another version that gives an adequate amount of depth to the image. One that I would be satisfied with.

i-h8ND6tj-L.jpg
 
Jerome Marot

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
James Lemon said:
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.
Click to expand...


If you post a picture in this section of the forum, you are implicitly asking other people to tell you how they perceive it. This is what I did. Don't tell me that there is no need to see more or less of the clouds when all I said is that I would prefer to see more or less of the clouds.

And, for you to know whether two people would look at this particular image in a similar way and have a similar experience you would need the opinion of two people on that point. Possibly, you would need the opinion of many people to see whether, on average, most people perceive the image in a similar manner or not. But you won't get a panel of opinions about this image on this forum, so I shall leave the discussion at this point. Have a nice day.
 
James Lemon

James Lemon

Well-known member
Jerome Marot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well Jerome your perception appears to be about an image outside the frame of the image I posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top