Two images from the same sunset

[JohnL]

I took these shots from the sailing vessel Margaret Todd in Bar Harbor in September 2005. The images are of the same sunset but are separated by about five minutes and a slight distance within the harbor. The camera is a Canon Powershot S30, hand held and the exposure information is unknown. Both images have the saturation bumped up ever so slightly and the vertical shot has slight cropping where I removed an annoying part of the ship in the LLC. Otherwise they are full frame straight shots.

Please provide me with your observations, critiques and suggestions.

Thanks
JohnL

Sunset #1


Sunset #2

 

[jwind]

I think the second one is more successful personally. There's a very elementary photography "rule" at play here. The rule of thirds (see pic) state one should always put objects of interest in "thirds section" (crosses). Otherwise an image can have a floaty type feeling. You've done this quite nicely with the 2nd shot. The horizon is nicely placed and the looming clouds work nicely. And the boat is just added scale bonus

There are always exceptions of course one big one I can think of is reflections. It's common practice to split the frame exactly in the center. It's kinda like saying, "i know I'm breaking this composition rule but I'm doing so bluntly it's obvious i-did-it-on-purpose. In other words, it becomes a study in symmetry.

se here:

In order for this to work, the horizon has to quite level (yours is a little titled) and seeing as the sun is such a dominate element, I'd think you'd need to put it smack dab in the middle ( we're going for symmetry here right?)

 

[kmorgan]

Here are 2 crop suggestions, one showing more sky, the other more water.

 

[JohnL]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions but let me make a couple clarifications about the image I labeled Sunset #1.

Actually, the intention of the image was not symmetry at all. Symmetry would imply that I had similar objects in the top/bottom or left/right sides of the image. Something like this. What I have in Sunset #1 is two distinct sections, one showing the sun, sky & clouds and the other showing the texture of the ripples in the water highlighted by the setting sun. The lower section of the photo is 40% of the image which shows the gradual transition of the coarseness of the texture of the waves to the faraway smoothness of the water blending in with the clarity of the sky and softness of the clouds. I cropped the photo to have the sun off center to stay away from any deliberate artificial centering.

Your comment about the tilted horizon made me go back and look at it again. Sure enough, it looked tilted but when I measured it to see how much I would need to trim in order to straighten it out, I actually found the real horizon to be nearly plum straight. The horizon appears to be tilted because the hills on the left side of the horizon are higher than the nearly flat land on the right. I think if you measure the ‘water horizon’ at both edges you’ll find them to be so close to be almost negligible.

There is no particular ‘object of interest’ in the image. The image is about light and shadow and lines and texture and color and tones and feeling. There is no ‘subject’ of this picture.

I did crop the photo to get the horizon at the ’one-third’ line and at first I was unconvinced that I liked it as well as my original. With some slight tweaks I was able to get closer to the one-third line but still maintain the ‘feel’ of the original. While both of the suggested crops created nice images, they both miss what my original visualization of the scene was, which I hope I have explained above.

Thanks for the input.

Thanks
JohnL

 

[jwind]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions but let me make a couple clarifications about the image I labeled Sunset #1.

Actually, the intention of the image was not symmetry at all. Symmetry would imply that I had similar objects in the top/bottom or left/right sides of the image.

Not necessarily, but often.

What I have in Sunset #1 is two distinct sections, one showing the sun, sky & clouds and the other showing the texture of the ripples in the water highlighted by the setting sun. The lower section of the photo is 40% of the image which shows the gradual transition of the coarseness of the texture of the waves to the faraway smoothness of the water blending in with the clarity of the sky and softness of the clouds. I cropped the photo to have the sun off center to stay away from any deliberate artificial centering.

No one is saying you image is bad. I just personally think that a more deliberate crop is effective. In other words, with a dominant horizon I think you either need to split it 50/50 or more like 25/75 other wise it can look like a mistake. 40\60 is just too close -- same goes for the sun, i'd personally like to see it centered or further to the left.

Your comment about the tilted horizon made me go back and look at it again. Sure enough, it looked tilted but when I measured it to see how much I would need to trim in order to straighten it out, I actually found the real horizon to be nearly plum straight. The horizon appears to be tilted because the hills on the left side of the horizon are higher than the nearly flat land on the right. I think if you measure the ‘water horizon’ at both edges you’ll find them to be so close to be almost negligible.

What great about photography is all that matters is what you see, NOT real life, or a ruller in this case. It looks a little crooked to me, you agreed it "looks that way" too...

There is no particular ‘object of interest’ in the image. The image is about light and shadow and lines and texture and color and tones and feeling. There is no ‘subject’ of this picture.

Of course there is! You said yourself it's about the light whcih is high contrast whcih of course brings out the texture of the surf and color tones. That being said, whether you like it or not, the sun is most definitely a dominate element in your image.

I did crop the photo to get the horizon at the ’one-third’ line and at first I was unconvinced that I liked it as well as my original. With some slight tweaks I was able to get closer to the one-third line but still maintain the ‘feel’ of the original. While both of the suggested crops created nice images, they both miss what my original visualization of the scene was, which I hope I have explained above.

I agree, I'm not crazy about those crops either. I find squarish crops rarely work well with vast landscapes. After all, generally landscape is shot with wide angle lenses, it would be counter productive to then go and crop your angle of view.

 

[Grumpy]

I do have to agree that, intended or not, the sun becomes a central subject in the seascape photos. Given that, I'd move to one of those magic points in the frame as given us by the rule of thirds.

Now ... having been agreeable, I'll be somewhat argumentative.

... I find squarish crops rarely work well with vast landscapes. After all, generally landscape is shot with wide angle lenses, it would be counter productive to then go and crop your angle of view.

First, jwind, I find your statement enigmatic, in that both of the (very nice, BTW) photos you posted to make your points in your first post in this thread, are square or nearly square in shape.

Second, having for a number of years shot with medium format, square image reflex cameras, I am of the opinion that perfectly nice landscape compositions do come in that shape. It's all about how the photographer positions himself and arranges subject elements within the frame. And some landscapes (and other subjects) just present themselves as natural squares.

Third, I really disagree with the comment about lanscapes generally being shot with wide angle lenses. It may be that photoghraphers reach first for their wide angle lenses when confronted by a landscape, and that some photogs never do otherwise. But that also may explain why so many unexceptional or outright disappointing landscape photos are made. Many fine landscapes are done with normal and normal-plus focal length lenses, which yield picture images that match what our eye-with-brain "sees" in edited version.

Prudence dictates extraordinary care in making blanket statements or rules about these things.

G.

 

[jwind]

I'm speaking in generalities, like the general principals you lean in photographic education. So we agree on the sun, that's really an easy one.

As for the square crop, well you have a good point and i to shot a number of years (and still do) with my hasselblad and large format film. AS you know the Hassy has square film plane which is often fun to work with. I do still do prefer (not always ) but do prefer less square crops. And the rule of thirds image doesn't really do anything for me BTW.

As for wide angles, landscape shooters most definitely prefer wides. always? No. but it's certaily common practice to use wides when shooting landscape. You need to remember that a 50mm on a hassy is wide BTW.

just google "landscape photgrapher" you get a slwe of articles on wide angle lenses

Here's

I do have to agree that, intended or not, the sun becomes a central subject in the seascape photos. Given that, I'd move to one of those magic points in the frame as given us by the rule of thirds.

Now ... having been agreeable, I'll be somewhat argumentative.

http://photoinf.com/General/Wim_van_Velzen/the_use_of_focal_length_in_landscape_photography.htm

I've been shooting commercially for ad agencies and other commercial publications for over 7 years. I generally don't get involved in amateur forums, not b/c there isn't good information but mostly b/c constructive criticism is all too often taken personally.

www.howell-ltd.com If your board