New Lens- new direction

[John Hunt]

I think the crop looks better also.

 

[Lez325]

I think the crop looks better also.

Not a crop John- I just removed the bank and person on the rigt, using Photoshop

 

[weepete]

I'm not a fan of that edit, as removes much needed balance from the scene. Without that spit and the person the leading lines in the shot take the eye out of the page.

IMO the best crop of this shot would be of the boats, the spit, and the figure. That would put the focal point on the mooring positons further out, rather than off the page. Though that crop would loose the context and a bit of personality as it cuts out the cottages.

I was going to show you, but notice you've marked your shots not ok to edit.

 

[Lez325]

I'm not a fan of that edit, as removes much needed balance from the scene. Without that spit and the person the leading lines in the shot take the eye out of the page.

IMO the best crop of this shot would be of the boats, the spit, and the figure. That would put the focal point on the mooring positons further out, rather than off the page. Though that crop would loose the context and a bit of personality as it cuts out the cottages.

I was going to show you, but notice you've marked your shots not ok to edit.

Thank for that insight Pete- as you know this genre is new to me- and I bow to your experience in these landscape images- on this occasion please feel free to show me your edit


Les

 

[weepete]

Thanks Les, sometimes it's easier to see with an image.

Below I've marked on the leading lines on the edit:

With any imagery, it's good to keep the eye in the frame, and we can see from the arrows the direction it takes the eye. This empasizes the importance of using anchors, particularly when a focal point is shifted to one side of an image.

Below would be what I'd suggest, if you were really wanting to crop. It's a simpler composition, though it has a bit less personality as it mostly removes the context of the surrounding landscape.

When we mark on the leading lines, we can see how it is more sucessful at keeping the eye in the frame, as there is now a focal point inside the image, with the lines of the spit and the person directing the eye back.

This also applies to the original shot. The major difference being the crop could be anywhere, whereas the original is very much a shot of that particular location.

 

[K9Kirk]

I am the same as you Kirk- I don't usually like to remove things from images- I guess sometimes its a must ?

Les

It's a must only if you agree it would or does look better. What one person may find to be an eye sore another may look at in a different way and see interest or beauty so it comes down to what you think because in the end it's you that's going to take credit for it. Just think, there wouldn't be a Vincent Van Gogh if he listened to everyone that said his brush strokes were too swirly.

 

[RAZKY]

What? a 50mm would make the image smaller - I don't understand your logic- I do have a Sony 50mm f1.4 G lens - but not good on full frame for images like this.

It's my personal opinion, of course, but the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural.

 

[K9Kirk]

Thanks Les, sometimes it's easier to see with an image.

Below I've marked on the leading lines on the edit:

With any imagery, it's good to keep the eye in the frame, and we can see from the arrows the direction it takes the eye. This empasizes the importance of using anchors, particularly when a focal point is shifted to one side of an image.

Below would be what I'd suggest, if you were really wanting to crop. It's a simpler composition, though it has a bit less personality as it mostly removes the context of the surrounding landscape.

When we mark on the leading lines, we can see how it is more sucessful at keeping the eye in the frame, as there is now a focal point inside the image, with the lines of the spit and the person directing the eye back.

This also applies to the original shot. The major difference being the crop could be anywhere, whereas the original is very much a shot of that particular location.

I feel that with the picture done this way it's a little confusing as to what the subject is, the boats or the person on the right and the mooring buoy is so dark it just grabs too much attention like if Nessy were sticking her head out of the water.

 

[weepete]

It's my personal opinion, of course, but the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a misconception.

It's not an intuitive thing to understand, but the size of foreground and background objects is determined by perspective, rather than focal length, so the shooting position would have to change as well to alter that relationship.

 

[Lez325]

I feel that with the picture done this way it's a little confusing as to what the subject is, the boats or the person on the right and the mooring buoy is so dark it just grabs too much attention like if Nessy were sticking her head out of the water.

Thank you Pete- I will try to take on board your advice- I really appreciate the time you take answering these posts

Les

 

[RAZKY]

It's not an intuitive thing to understand, but the size of foreground and background objects is determined by perspective, rather than focal length, so the shooting position would have to change as well to alter that relationship.

Most any rank amateur knows that. It also ought to be obvious that the more of a scene that is included in a particular image size, the smaller each component of the scene must be. Do you agree?

 

[jeffashman]

Most any rank amateur knows that. It also ought to be obvious that the more of a scene that is included in a particular image size, the smaller each component of the scene must be. Do you agree?

For those of us who are sub-rank amateurs, it's not quite as obvious... All levels are learning here.

 

[bchalifour]

I'm afraid that's a bit of a misconception.

It's not an intuitive thing to understand, but the size of foreground and background objects is determined by perspective, rather than focal length, so the shooting position would have to change as well to alter that relationship.

??? Well sorry to disagree but the focal length of a lens also determines whether the same object in the background looks closer to the foreground objects (telephoto) or further away (wide angle lens). Just try it.

 

[vStiles]

Everyone focusing on the image itself, and I take away something completely different lol. I see a long time shooter about to rediscover the love.
This is the beauty of photography. Taking yourself outside the comfort zone and (re)discovering something in yourself that gives you that feeling and excitement when you first got the bug.

 

[mathbias]

I'm sure I know less about good photo composition than any of you. But I'll give an opinion anyway:
I like the original overall framing of the scene. I like the inclusion of the person on the right and the point of land there.

I really dislike the stuff to that person's left: The white thing (I think a plastic mesh bin maybe) and the floating pole thing and its reflection.

If you were going to edit stuff out, that would be just a bit more difficult. I don't know exactly how you would decently clone a small segment of the land/water boundary. Clone a bit more land should be OK and obviously you've demonstrated cloning a lot more water (so cloning just a little shouldn't be hard). But I think editing out that bit of trash is much better than editing out the whole point of land.