Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Iceberg From Surface Level  (Read 3009 times)
Blair McDougall
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33



WWW
« on: December 19, 2009, 01:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I took this in June hanging off a crab boat. My main concern is the amount of sky. I rarely change my image ratios (2 x 3) but I was just wondering if there was too much sky. What you think? Any comments welcome.

[attachment=18787:_GBT3365_.jpg]

Thanks,
Blair
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1960



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2009, 02:30:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Blair McDougall
I took this in June hanging off a crab boat. My main concern is the amount of sky. I rarely change my image ratios (2 x 3) but I was just wondering if there was too much sky. What you think? Any comments welcome.

[attachment=18787:_GBT3365_.jpg]

Thanks,
Blair

Yes, too much sky.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8107



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2009, 03:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAit
Yes, too much sky.

I disagree. When I start cropping the sky it begins to look cramped. If the sky were completely uniform with no gradation, I might agree.


So we need some more opinions here.

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2009, 04:34:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricM
I disagree. When I start cropping the sky it begins to look cramped. If the sky were completely uniform with no gradation, I might agree.


So we need some more opinions here.


I disagree with you.

I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it.

What do you think about that?
Logged

Michael West
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347



« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2009, 06:50:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Blair McDougall
I took this in June hanging off a crab boat. My main concern is the amount of sky. I rarely change my image ratios (2 x 3) but I was just wondering if there was too much sky. What you think? Any comments welcome.

[attachment=18787:_GBT3365_.jpg]

Thanks,
Blair

My first thought was that the image would be perfect for a Book Cover as the expanse of sky in the photograph could easily lend  itself  to the addition of a typogrpahic overlay.

I would judge the sky on the use of the photo.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 06:53:47 PM by Michael West » Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2009, 12:46:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Michael West
My first thought was that the image would be perfect for a Book Cover as the expanse of sky in the photograph could easily lend  itself  to the addition of a typogrpahic overlay.

I would judge the sky on the use of the photo.

Excellent point that occurred to me as well.  Some photographs can be very effective within some intended context, but not so hot outside of it.  While many things we hold dear such as level horizons are offended here, the in-your-face water is pretty interesting and sets this shot some apart from your average iceberg shot.
Logged
alangubbay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2009, 06:23:15 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='BlasR' date='Dec 19 2009, 10:34 PM' post='334135']
"I disagree with you.

I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it."

With the very greatest respect, I have to agree.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8107



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2009, 10:30:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Blair,

It appears that this image appeals to a fairly select group of viewers (myself included) who aren't too wedded to the conventional wisdom about amount of sky, level horizon lines and the like.

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2009, 11:57:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes
Blair,

It appears that this image appeals to a fairly select group of viewers (myself included) who aren't too wedded to the conventional wisdom about amount of sky, level horizon lines and the like.

Eric
Yes. I too like the image.  I think it has every possible luminance level of blue, which makes it very interesting to me.  Here's another vote for not cropping any sky.

Dave
Logged

Blair McDougall
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2009, 12:16:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bill t.
Excellent point that occurred to me as well.  Some photographs can be very effective within some intended context, but not so hot outside of it.  While many things we hold dear such as level horizons are offended here, the in-your-face water is pretty interesting and sets this shot some apart from your average iceberg shot.

Thank-you for getting it. I didn't mean to offend anybody but I did want to test the waters with this one.
I hear over and over how more and more photographers feel stagnant, everything seems to have been shot to death. My whole idea is to push the conventions that bind instead of broaden a persons imagination or perspective.  I meant to be in-your-face a little bit. I've been shooting icebergs for over three years now and I needed to take it further. This is one in a of a series of six, same approach (none level).
Trash?..Perhaps to some, but then I don't shoot for everybody, I shoot for myself. That being said, when this print is on exhibition at 3' X 41/2 ft, it does stop quite e few people saying they have never seen shots like this before. That's the point isn't it?
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8107



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2009, 01:21:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Blair McDougall
Thank-you for getting it. I didn't mean to offend anybody but I did want to test the waters with this one.
I hear over and over how more and more photographers feel stagnant, everything seems to have been shot to death. My whole idea is to push the conventions that bind instead of broaden a persons imagination or perspective.  I meant to be in-your-face a little bit. I've been shooting icebergs for over three years now and I needed to take it further. This is one in a of a series of six, same approach (none level).
Trash?..Perhaps to some, but then I don't shoot for everybody, I shoot for myself. That being said, when this print is on exhibition at 3' X 41/2 ft, it does stop quite e few people saying they have never seen shots like this before. That's the point isn't it?
That's the right attitude. Stick to your guns!

Eric


Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2009, 03:44:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BlasR
I disagree with you.

I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it.

What do you think about that?

Trash? I think then you'd be losing a great image.
Logged

Greg Campbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2009, 07:44:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I quite like the supposedly deadly tilted horizon, but the sky/ocean ratio seems out of balance.  

After playing with it a bit, I've found two options that my eye likes.

A - Crop about 25% off the top.
or
B - Crop off the top 'till you get a square format.  I like this the best - it places the strong diagonal full of 'interesting things' dead center.

In either event, I'm sorely tempted to bump the shadow levels a bit, to separate the beautiful wave reflections, and to allow the water+ice to 'compete' with the bright sky.

Something like this, maybe?    

« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 07:50:43 PM by Greg Campbell » Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2009, 09:01:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Amazon only has a couple of these left, a terrific read, better hurry...

[attachment=18804:naked_iceberg.jpg]

I rest my case, is that not a killer cover or what?  With apologies to the OP.
Logged
Greg Campbell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42



« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2009, 09:08:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Logged
Brent McCombs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2009, 10:08:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BlasR
I disagree with you.

I think the image should be in the trash, nothing to see there, plus the horizon is tilt so bad , the will be loosing time trying to fix it.

What do you think about that?


On first glance, I'm inclined to agree. However on further consideration, I do think that if the OP likes it, he should definitely keep it.

That said, I'd be lying if I said it was exhibition or cover quality. A good personal image if you don't get to see bergs very often, but there are thousands of better berg images out there.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2009, 10:24:53 PM »
ReplyReply

All this reminds me how frequently photographers and designers and graphic artists and publishers and the public have completely different ideas about what constitutes a good photograph.

There may be thousands of "better" iceberg shots out there, but that close up little patch of water is pure gold, IMHO.  Makes it something between personal and frightening somehow, and same for the tilt.  We photographers sometimes get a little too tunnel-visioned on our sometimes over homogenized definitions of what's visually and technically correct.
Logged
Bradley Proctor
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2009, 08:55:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Brent McCombs
...but there are thousands of better berg images out there.

With perfectly level horizons taken from a standing eye level (aka boring).
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 08:55:32 AM by bproctor » Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad