[matthew]

Here are two images that I took today. I like them, but neither is quite what I wanted. I'm planning on heading back to this same spot in another day or two, probably with a different lens (or camera).

#1 - expanse



#2 - rock



Thanks for your thoughts.

[Keith Alan]

In my opinion Expanse needs something more.
It fits the title well enough, but beyond that there's nothing grabbing me.
Stormy clouds would be a big help, but then it wouldn't be stark and simple anymore so I don't know what else to suggest.
Excellent exposure and DOF as usual.

Close as heck but not QUITE level, which bugged me right away.
Here's a tip: In photoshop find the measure tool--in my version it's under the eyedropper.
Place the tool tip on one side of the horizon, click and hold down the mouse button, drag to opposite side and release. Then go to the rotate menu and the exact rotation needed is already entered.
This works the same way with vertical elements too.
Takes the trial and error out of rotation.

Rock is very cool.
The angle of the ripples on the water turn it into a more dramatic background while straightening the plant.
As you know I'm a level horizon kind of guy, so I never would have shot this scene at an angle and my version would have been deleted, while this is successful.

[shuttertalk]

Hey Matthew...

I can see what you're trying to get at with Expanse, but to me it might be a bit plain. Maybe with a more interesting sky or intense blue water it might work better... or maybe with a wider angle lens to convey the openness...

I agree with Keith on the rock - very creative.

[Irma]

#1 I like a lot the detail on the sea in the foreground... but I think it needs a subject to grap my attention... I also think that to express wideness on your picture you can help with a ratio 1:1.62 for example... your image grows wider and strengthens the idea... I might be wrong but it is my appreciation...

#2 is really nice I like it... the texture in the stone is great... however I would expect to see more in focus the plant, as a strong subject on your picture, I think it should stand out showing more of its beauty...

[matthew]

K, I hate to argue with a critique, but I'm calling that a straight horizon. I used the grid focus screen to get it close, measured and applied a -0.3 CW rotation, and checked with a ruler. (There's a shareware Mac program called Graphic Converter (excellent software, and very powerful - has an optional 350 page manual) that I used before I moved to photoshop. It had a tool "Straighten With Line" that got rid of the intermediate step: draw a line, image is straight. It was fantastic. If I move to Lightroom for raw development, I may register the shareware just for that one tool.) What I link you're seeing a the land on the very edge of the horizon; it's faint but slightly higher on the right than the left. #2 is my favourite, but still isn't a keeper. I'll try it again, though.

ST, you're right about #1 needing better tones. Really, it was taken at the wrong time; a lower angle on the light would emphasize the colour of the sky and remove the highlights from the water. And, I think I need either a much clearer day (unlikely) or a hazy one to obscure the horizon slightly. If this photo was a keeper, I'd also clone out the other two small buoys.

Irma, I'll come back here in the summer. This is the main channel into the west side of Toronto's harbor, with a couple of large recreational marinas nearby. You're also right about #2, the focus is off (it's on the rear-left blade) and the DOF isn't enough. Ideally, I'd like to have the entire rock sharp, but I'm not sure if it's possible in one photograph.

I like the idea of #1 more than I like the results, so I was playing with it a bit. The sky has a gaussian blur, the water has a motion blur, both have various colour dodge modes applied, and the levels independently adjusted. I like it better.

[NT73]

I think Keith is right, but it is miniscule. The angle of the waves give a false impression of tilt as well.
But I like the shot somehow. I don't think there needs to be anything else there. It looks peaceful.

[smarti77]

I also like the lack of any other subject in the first shot. The thing that caught my eye was the shapes in the waves / ripples closest to the camera. Another idea may be to get lower if possible (closer to the water) to emphasize these shapes in the water.

[matthew]

I think Keith is right, but it is miniscule. The angle of the waves give a false impression of tilt as well.
But I like the shot somehow. I don't think there needs to be anything else there. It looks peaceful.

Thanks, and yes, I'll give this round to Keith. I've revisited the original, and at full size and 300% magnification, yes, it was off a bit. Instead of -0.3 rotation, I should have used -0.225. Consider my head humbly bowed.

(Although I still don't see a difference in the small version.)

I've seen images of just water, where the tones and light are subjects in their own right. They were surprisingly powerful. I'm pursuing the same idea, but not with the same impact.

I revisited the location today, but with my tele-zoom instead of my macro lens. I got some photos of ducks.

I do like the stylized version better. Now I want to go back again, again.