Headlands

[Donald]

This is one of those that sat as an unfinished .tif for quite a while until I could 'see' what it was I wanted to do. I usually know that when I capture the photograph, but on this occasion I was disappointed that the photograph didn't measure up.

But, this morning, I was looking at it again and it suddenly clicked into place.

One key thing was the sharpen tool in Photoshop that allowed me to sharpen just key details.

Please do look at it in the Litebox.

Comments and critiques are always welcome.

[mugge]

There are not enough elements in this picture to hold my interest, I also think that it is a bit cramped vertically. I would like to see more of the sky.
Cheers Ole

[Round Tuit]

I see this differently than Ole. There are plenty of interesting details in the land masses particularly on the left. I would emphasize them by cropping off the sky just above the little dark cloud on the right. The result however would definitely not be a "Donald" picture.
André

[Wavelength]

Very nice; but i think if a good part of sky removed it would give a grand panoramic effect

[NorthernFocus]

A rocky coast under a damp sky. What's not to like? I'd have likely been inclined to go with a pano format similar to what Andre suggested. But when I try that by scrolling up to clip the top off the image on my screen it doesn't work. IMO you chosen format works better. And yes I like the detail on the headlands. Though some green would be nice

Not sure how far this is from your home. But if it's not far it might be a good candidate for a try at a long exposure on a day with a good sea running but not too hazy.

[JBW]

I like the stone man, extreme right.

[Round Tuit]

...I'd have likely been inclined to go with a pano format similar to what Andre suggested. But when I try that by scrolling up to clip the top off the image on my screen it doesn't work. IMO you chosen format works better...

Dan, I see an opportunity to gain a little knowledge. I too tried scrolling up to crop the sky but came to a very different conclusion than you did. I find that the crop emphasizes the details in the land mass and at the same time results in a more balanced picture both between the light and dark areas and between the sea,the land and the sky. Obviously, you see a greater benefit in keeping the mostly featureless sky more prominent. Would you be willing to explain why?
André
P.S. I would also love to hear what was Donald original intent.

[Donald]

Dan, I see an opportunity to gain a little knowledge. I too tried scrolling up to crop the sky but came to a very different conclusion than you did. I find that the crop emphasizes the details in the land mass and at the same time results in a more balanced picture both between the light and dark areas and between the sea,the land and the sky. Obviously, you see a greater benefit in keeping the mostly featureless sky more prominent. Would you be willing to explain why?
André
P.S. I would also love to hear what was Donald original intent.

I'll pitch in first.

'mostly featureless sky' - Do you think so? I see it as full of subtle tone changes as the clouds fold over one another. It's subtle, I agree. But it is there.

If I had gone to a 3:1 format, it would have been a picture of some cliffs. Which is fine. But I wanted more. I wanted the landscape and the environment on that misty morning. Interesting André you see the crop being more balanced, I see the image as it is being more balanced. But that's the fun of photography - Nobody's 'right'. It's about different views and opinions.

[NorthernFocus]

... Obviously, you see a greater benefit in keeping the mostly featureless sky more prominent. Would you be willing to explain why?.

Andre, I'm willing but unfortunately not able to explain it. At least not intelligently. I have no formal education/training in art of any form. For that matter I've never even read a book about art or the artistic aspects of photography. I have studied a bit about the physiology and psychology of human vision/perception. And have read various articles over the years on the rule of thirds, etc. So I can't provide a conceptual explanation for my opinion because it is purely perceptual.

But in an attempt to provide a reasonable explanation to the perfectly reasonable question, and to explain it to myself even, let me try. My perception is no doubt heavily influenced by the fact that I've spent almost all of my adult life as a mariner and/or living on the coast. And half my life in northern latitudes. So when I see the sea my mind/eye immediately goes to the sky/weather. And as I said in my first reply and as Donald indicated I see a lot in the sky in this image. So purely as a viewer of the image I just like it better with the sky taking what I perceive to be it's proper share of the canvas.

That said, I might have a different opinion if the image were color, if the ocean had a different texture, if.... For that matter, I might feel differently about it next week(at least next week simply because now that I've taken a position my ego won't allow a change of opinion for at least a week ) I'll also say that typically I'm not a fan of for example the classic lonesome tree with barely a strip of ground at the bottom of an image that is ninety percent sky. Once in a while I see that sort of image that I like. But typically not.

So bottom line my opinion is purely from my perception as a viewer and is based on the lens through which my mind's eye views the world. It's that simple

[JBW]

Dan, I see an opportunity to gain a little knowledge. I too tried scrolling up to crop the sky but came to a very different conclusion than you did. I find that the crop emphasizes the details in the land mass and at the same time results in a more balanced picture both between the light and dark areas and between the sea,the land and the sky. Obviously, you see a greater benefit in keeping the mostly featureless sky more prominent. Would you be willing to explain why?
André
P.S. I would also love to hear what was Donald original intent.

Andre, All of us see as natural and normal what our lives have conditioned us to see. I spent many years on Canada's north west coast as a lighthouse keeper, a deckhand on a coaster, and as a member of a small village. I have spent countless hours developing the ability to see details in low lying clouds and fog. I have also come to expect a lot of sky with an ocean view. Perhaps if I had spent a lot of time on the Great Plains in central Canada I would come to expect lots of sky as well.

I agree with you about the crop. It's possible to crop the sky to just include the dark cloud on the extreme right and end up with a fine shot. But, and there's always a but: to my eyes it wouldn't look natural.

Hope that helps.
Brian

[Donald]

Thanks for all the comments.

I am going off to a B & W Masterclass in the Lake District of England tomorrow (for the rest of the week), so hopefully will learn everything I'm doing wrong! It is being led by Paul Gallagher and it is limited to 4 participants.

Paul's book 'Exploring Black & White Photography: A Masterclass', has already given me a good couple of things to take on board.

[billtils]

Thanks for all the comments.

I am going off to a B & W Masterclass in the Lake District of England tomorrow (for the rest of the week), so hopefully will learn everything I'm doing wrong! It is being led by Paul Gallagher and it is limited to 4 participants.
Paul's book 'Exploring Black & White Photography: A Masterclass', has already given me a good couple of things to take on board.

Donald

First of all, I like the shot as is. It's a classic framing for this type of shot with the black stuff and stronger detail (no milky water!) occupying the bottom third and a light but not featureless sky above it. I've tried it a couple of times lately and it's not easy.

The main reason for replying at this point is to say something on the lines of "if Donald is going to go on a B&W masterclass, what hope is there for the rest of us?" and the answer to that is that no matter how good (or bad) your technique, there are always opportunities for improvement. A big pat on the back to you Donald.

[billtils]

Paul's book 'Exploring Black & White Photography: A Masterclass', has already given me a good couple of things to take on board.

Thanks for the reference to this; downloaded the iBook and it looks like a bargain!

[Donald]

The main reason for replying at this point is to say something on the lines of "if Donald is going to go on a B&W masterclass, what hope is there for the rest of us?" and the answer to that is that no matter how good (or bad) your technique, there are always opportunities for improvement.

Thank you, Bill.

I have always said and strongly believe that the day to give up photography is the day I stop wanting to learn. My joining the Societies of Photographers and hooking up to its mentor programme is always about challenging myself and, hopefully, improving. The same can be said of this masterclass.

There will be things he says that I am familiar with (I hope so anyway), but there will always be some gems that you hadn't thought about/didn't know about that will be valuable in terms of improvement.

[Manfred M]

I am going off to a B & W Masterclass in the Lake District of England tomorrow

Sounds like an excellent plan. When I take these types of classes, it's more than learning about what I am doing wrong, but also to understand what I am doing right. I've found that building on my strengths gets me better results than dwelling on areas that I am less strong in. I have found that areas I am already strong in are usually things I am already interested in and identify closely with my style, whereas weaknesses are more often found in aspects of the genre I am not all that interested in.

I'm looking forward to hearing all about your learnings when you get back!

[Donald]

I've found that building on my strengths gets me better results than dwelling on areas that I am less strong in.

Absolutely.

We are more motivated to respond to working to better our strengths than 'fix' our weaknesses. I think the latter will flow from the former.

[xpatUSA]

This is one of those that sat as an unfinished .tif for quite a while until I could 'see' what it was I wanted to do. I usually know that when I capture the photograph, but on this occasion I was disappointed that the photograph didn't measure up.

But, this morning, I was looking at it again and it suddenly clicked into place.

One key thing was the sharpen tool in Photoshop that allowed me to sharpen just key details.

Donald, so that I can understand the usage of the word "key" in the context of this fine image, could you be so kind as to point out some subject details that were "key" - therefore sharpened - and other details that were not "key" and therefore not sharpened, meaning no sharpening applied (or just "capture"?).

[Donald]

Donald, so that I can understand the usage of the word "key" in the context of this fine image, could you be so kind as to point out some subject details that were "key" - therefore sharpened - and other details that were not "key" and therefore not sharpened, meaning no sharpening applied (or just "capture"?).

Happy to oblige.

Capture sharpening is performed by DXO Optics (or whatever it's called now) automatically and is based on the Camera and Lens module loaded into the software.

What I meant by the word 'key', was 'creative sharpening', set out in one source as "The term creative sharpening comes from the concept that this sharpening is done for more aesthetic reasons rather than to remedy a technical issue, which is the case with both capture sharpening and output sharpening." (https://www.dpmag.com/how-to/tip-of-...and-lightroom/). I was a bit lose in my terminology. The work 'key' as applied by me, is not helpful.

[xpatUSA]

Happy to oblige.

Capture sharpening is performed by DXO Optics (or whatever it's called now) automatically and is based on the Camera and Lens module loaded into the software.

What I meant by the word 'key', was 'creative sharpening', set out in one source as "The term creative sharpening comes from the concept that this sharpening is done for more aesthetic reasons rather than to remedy a technical issue, which is the case with both capture sharpening and output sharpening." (https://www.dpmag.com/how-to/tip-of-...and-lightroom/). I was a bit lose in my terminology. The work 'key' as applied by me, is not helpful.

Thanks Donald, now it is clear ...

[shreds]

Absolutely.

We are more motivated to respond to working to better our strengths than 'fix' our weaknesses. I think the latter will flow from the former.

Whilst Donald is undoubtedly a perfectionist and in a master class already, I agree, we never stop learning and even if it is only one thing from the lesson, then its one thing more than you would have been able to do before.

(The only session I went to that truly blew my mind on all counts, was a session with Joe McNally who was so full of inspiring ideas and fixes, you just came away in a daze. Obviously picked up some tips there but could have spent a week listening and watching).

So there is always something new to learn and that is what makes life interesting.

I hope that the trip to the Lakes will add a new dimension, but at the same time, they will no doubt gain from your knowledge and experience too.