Tide Point, Inner Harbor, Baltimore MD

[Harpo]

Wondering if I got the composition right? Better to show this much water or more sky? Sky is uneventful, so I thought...


IMG_0584 by Michael VerVelde Photography, on Flickr

f/8, 120mm, iso 400, 1/15

[Bobobird]

A bit more sky, a little less water imho. 1 cm or so should do it.
The tower thingy on the left is not getting enough top room.

[Donald]

Wondering if I got the composition right?... Sky is uneventful, so I thought...

Mike

I think this comment helps us think through another question that comes in to the mix (and I do not necessarily mean that it applies to this image).

That is - When we see a scene we like, do we remain totally objective about its potential to make a good image? Or do we 'see' what we want to be there and tell ourselves that we'll get the best out of it in post=processing?

I think we all do it. And I think one of the most important lessons to teach ourselves (and I know I still fail miserably on occasions) is when to know there is not a 'great' image in there and walk away from it.

So, if we use your image and your comment as an example - If you saw that the sky was uneventful and knew that you were pushing it to try and wrestle a decent composition out of it, should you have said, 'No' and walked on?

I always find it interesting when I make myself ask this question. I like doing so because it tells me I'm thinking about what I'm doing.

[Shadowman]

Wondering if I got the composition right? Better to show this much water or more sky? Sky is uneventful, so I thought...


IMG_0584 by Michael VerVelde Photography, on Flickr

f/8, 120mm, iso 400, 1/15

I was just recently there, didn't capture anything nearly as nice, well outside anyway.

[Harpo]

Donald, you have a very good point there... this image, I pulled up from a previous shooting... back in april, one month after I joined CIC. I remember being there, the scene was really nice, but I dont think I captured it as well as I might have right now after learning what I have so far on this site or with more experience. The light was pretty cool at that time though... Id love to try it again with my new L lens because i don't think I got this one as sharp as I think I could get right now with what I have learned.

[rob marshall]

Mike

Thanks for the PM permission to edit.

Any given landscape scene that you find yourself in will have an emotional impression upon you. It could be you are on a vacation, or are with a special friend, or some other reason. When you take a shot of it you are partly motivated by that emotional response. That's not a criticism, I do it myself all the time. But it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a good shot, for the simple reason that others who see the shot were just not there with you.

You can get around that, and still present a very good shot by relying more on an interesting content, and a well thought out composition, which is subsequently well processed. It can still have an impact.

I don't want to say too much about your shot, but generally speaking with a landscape you need to be standing in the right place at the right time (the camera equipment isn't all that important). You need to create a sense of spatial depth by positioning (or shooting from a position that gives the impression of positioning) elements of the shot so you achieve a three dimensional effect, in what is, of course, just a two dimensional image. Your shot does lack this depth, and it's made worse by the sky and water at the top and bottom, which tends to reduce the central detail to a horizontal band across the screen; it lacks spatial depth.

How could you have done it different? Zoomed in closer is probably all you could have done here as there were clearly restrictions upon you in this scene.

The processing is also a little flat on light, and as well as doing a crop to try and reduce the 'horizontal' effect, I boosted the contrast.

Sorry to go on. If you think I have said too much, please let me know.

[Harpo]

Thanks Rob for your feedback. I see what you are saying along with Donald and the rest. I recall I felt a bit frustrated trying to find the best place to view on the pier... if you know Inner Harbor, there are so many things jutting out and I was trying to keep those out of the picture. Im sure if I spend more time around there I might have eventually found a better orientation. Who knows. Your comments make sense when I apply it to all else I have learned on this site since taking that shot! Thanks again for the helpful advice.

[MrB]

Mike, your composition follows the rule of thirds for the sky, structures and water, but I agree with Rob that the image is rather flat. It can be given more life and depth using local contrast. This brings out not only the colours and structures, but also more of the detail on the water - particularly the nice ripple reflections of the lights and the ship's mast. This makes the one third of water a much more significant feature of the image and the sky then serves to give it balance. E.g. -



Philip

[Harpo]

So if I had something in the foreground like part of the pier I was on and lower to the water it would have given a bit more depth?

[rob marshall]

So if I had something in the foreground like part of the pier I was on and lower to the water it would have given a bit more depth?

Mike

have a look at this shot. It's by a guy called Ed Rhodes who was digital photographer of the year for one of the UK photo mags. Notice how he creates a great 3D effect by using both foreground and distant elements. I don't know him, and he's nothing to do with me - I just picked it as an example.

http://www.ephotozine.com/user/edrho...anada-20135072

[Harpo]

Great examples Rob. Thanks... The pics "media reflections" is probably something I could have done at Inner Harbor if I thought of it better. Some of the piers had those big metal chocks. Maybe this is a good challenge for me to take another trip down there... its only an hour away.