Sunset's @ the Beach

cosmom3 · Dec 7, 2007

Great, thanks for your critique.

LaFoto · Dec 7, 2007

I certainly see what you mean about trying to get the best photographic results IN-camera FIRST before you will need to (or later even WANT to) apply any post processing to your photography. That is a good, solid approach and I applaud you for wanting THAT before wishing to HAVE a good pp software and later hone your skills on that software.

The top photo is the one in question now and I feel that it lacks in composition.

Apart from the fact that to my mind any photo of water surfaces needs to have an absolutely levelled horizon (I always say "Your photo leaks and will run dry eventually" otherwise - and you cannot claim the water was "hilly", either

), this particular one seems to show more than was your subject, and that fact makes it "cluttered".
How can a 10-second-exposure of a photographer photographing the ocean at sunset be cluttered?
By a too widely cropped frame: the house on the hill is definitely distracting, for the bright light very actively pulls the eye away from what you MEANT to show. Light does that. Bright light spots clamour for our attention. (You drive at night, you see a light, you LOOK - invariably. For example).

And now I am beginning to go :scratch: and to wonder... when you crop off the part on the right, but want to stay with the normal print ratio ... which part would you apply your scissors to, as well? What should go (not have been there for the start)? Some of the dark foreground, or a bit of sky? :scratch:

Given he amount of dust in the sky, I would - if this were mine, and to save time on cloning it all out - "sacrifice" some of the sky, which would conveniently move the horizon line higher up, more towards the upper third of your picture than where it is now (whereas "sacrificing" some of the dark bottom would move it dangerously close to the very centre, and in landscape/seascape photography a centred horizon just does NOT work, it makes a photo boring, there are too many balances there and a picture need "tension" created by IM-balances, such as a shifted horizon.

When you want to show the vastness of the sky (impressive clouds or so) and how it forms an impressive DOME, you will fill at least 2/3 of your frame with sky and only 1/3 (or less) with ground.

When your primary interest is the countryside, how it stretches from here to far far away, when you want to show how BEAUTIFUL it is, then you will fill your frame with mostly countryside and only a bit of sky.

I feel that here, some sky should go, since in addition to the seascape also some ACTION is your photographic subject! You want to show a PHOTOGRAPHER who photographs this sunset.

Those cropping ideas in mind, you will see for yourself that your foremost subject (the photographer) is too dark. Even at a 10-second exposure he remained too dark.

A longer exposure would begin to blow out the part of sky where the sun is setting. But the part where there is night already is too dark. Which means: the dynamics exceed what your camera is able to capture.

This would be the point where high dynamic range (HDR) could come into play: at least three different exposures - a middle one, and one exposing for the photographer (overexposing the sky), and another exposing for the sky (throwing the photographer into total darkness) - to later merge those three into one, taking advantage of all the different exposure levels in the final photo. But that sure involves the use of software. And who can remain in this position as the photographer is in for such a long time, not moving (for he would not be allowed to move!)???

You see - you have set yourself a high goal with this particular photo!