Today's offering from my weekend away: Jetty Under Repair

[Donald]

I shot this the day before. For me what was wrong with it was I had not properly lined the camera up with the end of the jetty and the end of the island behind it. I hadn't seen that that was a crucial (for me) element of the image I was trying to make. [Yes, I did flog myself for my stupidity].

So (and thankfully the light and conditions were even better at 6am the next day), I re-shot it. And got this.

What do you think?


40D, EF 70-200 f4 L IS @ 81mm. ISO100. 10s@f32

[jiro]

You've found some very nice subjects to shoot at on that place, Donald. I like main subject, the jetty, but I don't think the island helps a lot in the shot. Now, what "if" you clone the island, then reverse its orientation so its facing to the left instead of to the right? Maybe that would make the shot more interesting. I dunno, just a wild imagination on my side. Hehehe. Mind if I try it out?

[Donald]

Mind if I try it out?

Please do

[jiro]

Here you go:

[Donald]

Hopefully, others will come in and comment. Be interesting to see what their views are. So as not to influence those, I'll wait 'til others comment.

[Frankie]

Wow! I like the original, but I completely understand why Willie made the suggestion to move the island. The photo does seem left-heavy.
Willie, I like what you've done and I'm very impressed with it! I have so much to learn.

One suggestion: Instead of placing the entire island on the right, what about cutting it at that first little gap in the trees from the right? That would make the crossover a little less "center-heavy" and make the island appear less prominent.
I'd also be interested to see how it looked with the island removed completely with some more cropping.

Overall - really cool photo and impressive PP. Both of you continue to amaze me with your talents.

frankie

[Steve S]

Hopefully, others will come in and comment. Be interesting to see what their views are. So as not to influence those, I'll wait till others comment.

The first image gives me a calming effect. The second image gives me a feeling of conflict and it stalls my view between the pier and island, where as the first image i kind of flow through it out to sea. If that makes any sense?

[Steve S]

I also think a little negative space on the right would give a little more impact.

[jiro]

I'd also be interested to see how it looked with the island removed completely with some more cropping.

me, too.

[abhi]

I am with Steve on the feeling of conflict in the edit. Maybe adding the background haze back will bring the focus back to the Jetty.

[ScoutR]

My thoughts on this would be to darken the Island to more or less the same tone as the Jetty. Then I would like it as is, but agree with Steve that more negative space on the right would help if possible.

I like what Jiro has done with the rework, but I still prefer the original composition. However, if my eyes are seeing correctly, I think he has done something to extend and darken the Jetty reflection - I like that.

Wendy

[ucci]

Okay, I am a novice and so I accept my comments may not count for much; and that they could be lacking in substance technically. At my current level of expertise I do " ignorance" very well! However, though I liked the original image bes,t I was a bit unclear as to what I should be looking at, the Island or the jetty. The space between them seemed to be a bit dissociative. Willi once again demonstrated his superb imagination and Mastery of Photoshop. I notice that he also addressed the spatial separation between the jetty and the Island. It was an interesting concept to contradispose ( okay, probably no such word. I just made it up; bit of post processing artistic licence here!) the two. However I liked the original version. I have appended my rather poor attempts at doing something about engaging a closer link between the jetty and the Island. This whole exercise does raise in my mind the old conundrum, for me at any rate, of how much artistic merit should be 'photo' and how much should be 'post processing.'

I know it may sound specious to some but there is another reason I prefer the original orientation of the island and the jetty. It is for historical reasons. It is surprising just how many family photos are handed into Historical Societies 'down the track, and which become incorporated into Historical records and become a reference record of the way things were. Local Historical Societies often seek such photos from the community. All of this may sound fanciful to many folk, but I have plenty of first hand experience of this with our local Historical Society, which is really a rather piddly little group, and yet which receives many requests for information on such records from the past by people and groups for divers reasons. I hope my comments on this post are not out of order. I do feel a bit cheeky having been so forthright, especially on the work of some of Donald's expertise.
I apologize for having gone on so long and sincerely hope that my comments have not offended anyone. Such was never my intent.
ucci



ucci

[ucci]

me, too.

I actually tried cropping out the Island Willi. The end result did not scrub up nearly as well as the original. Was rather dull and 'lifeless.' without the Island backdrop. Also when cropped it seemed to me to highlight a strobe like artifact on the upper cable of the the safety fence on the jetty. ( Sorry Donald, no slight intended on your work. Just my opinion.) K

[Donald]

( Sorry Donald, no slight intended on your work. Just my opinion.) K

None taken. I'm just glad that my image has stimulated some thought amongst members about the structure and content of images. If it contributes to reflection and learning, then it will have been a success.

I am not sure why, but Willie's original edit changes the image, for me, into a something taken from a warn caribbean beach, rather than a chilly, misty, grey morning on a Scottish loch. It changes the mood entirely and ends up not being what I 'saw' when clicking the shutter. That's a quite different point from the fact that what Willie has done is a master class in creative post-processing and produced a mighty fine image.

It also takes us into the arena, as indicated by Ken, that has been discussed on here previously, as to how much 'manipulation' of reality is legitimate or acceptable. My own view, as expressed previously, is that if I'm not producing a news or documentary image, then anything goes. However, there is a rider to that that I impose upon myself (so it doesn't need to apply to anyone else) and that is to not fundamentally change the scene that was in front of me when I fired the shutter. If I haven't got the composition right, then that's my fault not the landscape's.

So, I'm delighted to see what ideas people have had about my image. But, in conclusion, I think the ideas fundamentally change the mood and atmosphere that I felt and sought to convey. The failure to convey that mood and atmosphere to others is something still to be worked on.

But please do keep commenting.

[Donald]

( Sorry Donald, no slight intended on your work. Just my opinion.) K

None taken. I'm just glad that my image has stimulated some thought amongst members about the structure and content of images. If it contributes to reflection and learning, then it will have been a success.

I am not sure why, but Willie's original edit changes the images, for me, into a something taken from a warn caribbean beach, rather than a chilly, misty, grey morning on a Scottish loch. It changes the mood entirely and ends up not being what I 'saw' when clicking the shutter. That's a quite different point from the fact that what Willie has done is a master class in creative post-processing and produced a mighty fine image.

It also takes us into the arena, as indicated by Ken, that has been discussed on here previously, as to how much 'manipulation' of reality is legitimate or acceptable. My own view, as expressed previously, is that if I'm not producing a news or documentary image, then anything goes. However, there is a rider to that that I impose upon myself (so it doesn't need to apply to anyone else) and that is to not fundamentally change the scene that was in front of me when I fired the shutter. If I haven't got the composition right, then that's my fault not the landscape's.

So, I'm delighted to see what ideas people have had about my image. But, in conclusion, I think the ideas fundamentally change the mood and atmosphere that I felt and sought to convey. The failure to convey that mood and atmosphere to others is something still to be worked on.

But please do keep commenting.