Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Grand Cayman Tranquility  (Read 847 times)
Andy Ilachinski
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



WWW
« on: January 20, 2013, 07:57:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Captured in front of our hotel in Grand Cayman during a trip my wife and I took there in 2009.

Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5744



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2013, 01:30:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Simple. Clean.  I like it!

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
shaunw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 397



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2013, 02:10:54 AM »
ReplyReply

The negative space top of frame isn't working for me, negative space has to fulfil a active role in the sense that it has to further enhance the main focal aspect of frame, it just misses here....however, you have a superb mono square if that's your thing? Personally I think it would work as a lot better.

Shaun
Logged

Canon 5D mk II Sigma 10-20, Canon 17-40mm L, Canon 24-105mm L, Canon 70-200 L, Lee Filters, Manfrotto geared head/tripod.

''Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop''. Ansel Adams
http://www.shaunwalbyphotography.com
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2013, 04:26:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I like it too but like Shaun, I'm a bit bothered by the upper part of the image. After a while, I seem to see two images, the lower part (rocks and sands) is very smooth and the upper part too light.
Logged

Francois
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2117


« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2013, 04:32:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The negative space top of frame isn't working for me, negative space has to fulfil a active role in the sense that it has to further enhance the main focal aspect of frame, it just misses here....however, you have a superb mono square if that's your thing? Personally I think it would work as a lot better.

Shaun may have a point.

Tony Jay
Logged
Andy Ilachinski
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2013, 07:54:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The negative space top of frame isn't working for me, negative space has to fulfil a active role in the sense that it has to further enhance the main focal aspect of frame, it just misses here....however, you have a superb mono square if that's your thing? Personally I think it would work as a lot better.

Shaun

I take your point, and - in fact - have two versions, though this one has always kept my eye longer. For me, the presence of the "empty" upper part
serves to continually draw the attention away from the rocks, which you simultaneously want to get back to as the main part of the image. The slow oscillation from top to bottom to top again mimics the gentle rhythm of the quiet surf, which was really the point of the capture (a long exposure at dusk, with the boundary between "water" and sand essentially invisible.
Logged

churly
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 549


« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2013, 07:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I've looked at this a couple of times and have to agree with Andy.  The negatve space produces the dynamics.  IMO a square would be static.
Logged

Chuck Hurich
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2013, 07:35:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually both Andy and Shaun bring very good points to the table.

I propose a compromise between the two with a 4/3 crop,  taking off  a smidge from the bottom, dropping the rocks down,  and the rest off the top to eliminate what I also see as somewhat superfluous surf at the top.  Could also use a touch more contrast . ;-)

David
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 07:40:35 PM by davidh202 » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad