Gay Head Light

[FrankMi]

The red brick light was built in 1844 to replace a wooden tower authorized by President John Quincy Adams. In 1856, the marvelous Fresnel lens with its 1,009 prisms was installed, after having been proudly exhibited at the World's Fair in Paris.

For two centuries, the Gay Head Lighthouse has been an iconic symbol of Martha’s Vineyard, and New England’s maritime history. But now crumbling cliff threatens the very existence of the lighthouse.

The lighthouse stands about 50 feet from the edge of the cliff, and they are currently losing 2-6 feet of ground each year. The equipment to move the lighthouse requires a 40-foot perimeter. When you do the math, it is easy to see they are almost out of time. It is estimated that it will take three million dollars for this project.

I have two renditions of the lighthouse. One is the actual scene and one is an artist’s rendition of the scene.









Which one do you prefer?


And if you want to test your powers of observation, which one is the artist’s rendition?

[jamn4ex]

I would say 1 is the artists rendition, and I do prefer it.

[deetheturk]

Nice image Frank,its very hard to pick,but i'm with James and think its #1

[Downrigger]

#1 has a more appealing composition for me. I think it is the modified one though, only because the artist would probably have taken on the railing in the second image after all the other work. Whichever it is, it's tight work.

[Marie Hass]

Based on your commentary, I would say #2 is the artist's rendition. Look how far back the light house is from the edge of the cliff.

Marie

[Otavio]

Hi, Frank. #1 works a lot better for me. The composition is the reason. The (strong) greens are just contrasting with the blue sky and rock/sand tones, rather than dominating the image like on #2. Also, the handrail on #2 is a little distracting and the lighthouse is too close to the right border, while it is perfectly positioned on #1 (and that is also why I think #1 is the artist rendition )

So, #2 is nice but #1 is a wonderful landscape, IMHO. Well done.

My 2 cents.

[bnnrcn]

#1 is the artists' one I like #2 as well but I think it needs a little cropping at the bottom just from the point that green and sea meet eachother on the left.The colours and composition in#1 are stronger and it looks nicer.

[rpcrowe]

I agree, #1.

It is doubtful that an artist would add telephone lines or fence (image right) to an image...

[rudi]

The lighthouse stands about 50 feet from the edge of the cliff, and they are currently losing 2-6 feet of ground each year. ........
Which one do you prefer?
And if you want to test your powers of observation, which one is the artist’s rendition?

Hi Frank,

I prefer nr 1. Wonderfull picture.
Nr 2 is the artist's rendition IMO.

Kr, Rudi

[IzzieK]

Frank...I like #1 the best. It has a better composition. Whether it is an artistic rendition or not, #1 it is for me. #2...???? Nah....

[FrankMi]

Thank you all for your comments and insightful thoughts. For those that feel that the artist rendition was the first image, you are correct. The only difference between the basis of the two images is the position of the lighthouse. My apologies for the accurate but potentially misleading introduction that may have led some astray. The erosion is not very evident from this vantage point.

I liked the original but it suffered from a number of issues. The two focal points were the cliff face and the lighthouse, but because they were so far apart, they divided the composition into two separate areas without complementing each other. This also prevented us from being able to get close in to appreciate the details of either area without losing one or the other critical parts of the scene.

Although the fence and other issues could be addressed in shooting position or post processing, it would still leave us with a lackluster boring image.

The purpose of the exercise for me was not to change reality as I see very little benefit in creating an image that doesn't exist, but rather to explore what makes an interesting composition and why.

In this case, we have both the horizon and the lighthouse right on the 'Rule of Thirds'.

Next we have the use of leading lines and geometric shapes in the cliff face to draw the eye's attention around the image to help explore the detail.

Next we have the advantage of the close-up of both the cliff face and the lighthouse, making them more prominent in the scene.

The repeated use of the triangle shapes in the cliff face provide a series of complementary patterns that are much easier to visualize than in the original.

The only one of the five basic 'rules' of composition that isn't used is using a naturally occurring element as a framing device.

I try to consider these five 'basic' rules as I am composing a shot, not because that are a requirement but rather because they offer a sound starting point for seeing the potential of any image. Once I feel I really understand the rules and how to apply them I may be in a better position to also understand when and where to effectively break them.

[Marie Hass]

Thank you Frank, for the "lesson". I had figured the RO3, but did not give consideration to your other points. I will ponder them during the Super Bowl game tonight....or maybe table them for later?

Marie