Headlands

[JBW]

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.

My own very selfish hope is that as I watch Donald's progression and read his explanations I'll pick up some of his technique.

[Donald]

My own very selfish hope is that as I watch Donald's progression and read his explanations I'll pick up some of his technique.

Would be a privilege.

I am no teacher though. I always used to say that in work. I can always explain what I do or how to do something, but having the language and style to teach is not one of my skills.

The most surprising thing for me is to be thought of being someone with something to share, rather than being the pupil. Must be the Scottish presybertian thing of not thinking that your special.

[JBW]

Would be a privilege.

I am no teacher though. I always used to say that in work. I can always explain what I do or how to do something, but having the language and style to teach is not one of my skills.

The most surprising thing for me is to be thought of being someone with something to share, rather than being the pupil. Must be the Scottish presybertian thing of not thinking that your special.

One needs only to look at your photography to see the uniqueness of your essence.

[Round Tuit]

"mostly featureless sky" was a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant was exactly what you just said; the tonal variations in the sky are subtle and therefore not very prominent. They are there and they do contribute significantly to the image. My question to you and Dan,who are both much better photographers than I will probably ever be, was; why include so much of it when the subject of the picture is "Headlands"? I was looking for the rational behind your decision as a mean to improve my skills.
I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by your, Dan's and Brian's answers which boiled down to "because I like it that way". That is also the criterion that I use most of the time without usually being able to explain it to myself. It was also somewhat disappointing because that answer will not contribute to my quest to become a better photographer.
My rational analysis of your photo led me to the conclusion that the reducing the prominence of the sky would put more emphasis on the headlands and still convey the damp and misty mood of the day while producing a more "balanced" picture. I don't think that the analysis was wrong but the conclusion is. It is now up to me to figure out why.
I hope that I did not leave anybody with the impression that I do not like your picture because I do nor that I think that my version would be better because I don't.

André

[NorthernFocus]

...I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by your, Dan's and Brian's answers which boiled down to "because I like it that way". That is also the criterion that I use most of the time without usually being able to explain it to myself. It was also somewhat disappointing because that answer will not contribute to my quest to become a better photographer...

In order to pursue any goal it needs to be clear in one's mind. So how do you define "better"? What do you seek to achieve with your photography? Many of us, myself included, will state that we shoot to please ourselves. And yet the very fact that we post photos on a public forum seeking feedback belies such a claim. To some degree and for various reasons we all hope to produce images that are liked/enjoyed by others. But as the ages old wisdom states, you can't please all the people all the time. So one must make choices. Who is the target audience? To what degree am I willing to alter what pleases me in order to please others? If you look at the work of well known photographers they typically have a fairly narrow range of subject matter and a specific style that they hone to perfection. They've made a choice to target a very specific audience. On the other hand, there are thousands of commercial photographers that none of us have ever heard of who make a good living by shooting anything and any style that will sell whether it appeals to their own personal taste or not. They've also made a choice.

I stated previously that I've never had any formal training. Nor do I plan to take any. Feedback in public forums like this and by other means are my training ground. That's how I learn about what is/isn't pleasing to others. One thing that I have learned over time is that the photos that are my personal favorites rarely have mass appeal. I suppose I'm just an odd guy.

...My rational analysis of your photo led me to the conclusion that the reducing the prominence of the sky would put more emphasis on the headlands and still convey the damp and misty mood of the day while producing a more "balanced" picture. I don't think that the analysis was wrong but the conclusion is. It is now up to me to figure out why...

Your analysis of Donald's photo was spot on. Neither your rational nor your conclusion were wrong. But in art there is no right or wrong. There's just different. No doubt many viewers would prefer a panoramic format with less sky. A couple of us indicated our preference for it as-is and explained why it appeals to our own sense of taste. Our taste ON THIS PARTICULAR PHOTO is different than yours. Not right or wrong. Just different. On the next photo we may all agree. That's one of the things that makes it interesting.

[JBW]

I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by your, Dan's and Brian's answers which boiled down to "because I like it that way".
André

Andre, I hope my reply doesn't boil down to 'because I like it that way'. I tried to explain why I liked it the way I did. I like it the way it is shot because in my life experiences the way the shot was formed agrees with my memories.

In my memories if Donald was trying for a realistic shot he succeeded.

I believe that your analysis and conclusion are at least as valid as mine.
Brian.

[odds]

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

Thank you for the reference, I will order a copy. I just read Mike Johnston commenting on "The Digital Glow": http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...ital-glow.html . It is kind of a followup on his much older posting "The Glow": http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...-the-glow.html

Among other resources his recent post refers to Shorpy (Historic Photo Archive & Fine-Art Prints): http://www.shorpy.com/

--
OddS

[Round Tuit]

Brian,
You explained very well why you like the picture and I get it. However, the reasons that you like it are rooted in your previous experience as a mariner, a lighthouse keeper, etc. We all have different life experiences and therefore different likes and dislikes and those are never wrong but just different.
When I evaluate a picture on this site all I can look at is the picture itself. I look at the technical choices and the compositional choices that the poster made when creating his picture and compare these choices to what I would have done in an attempt to learn a bit more about our craft. I try to leave my personal preferences out of the analysis although this is never entirely possible. If Donald chose to include more of the sky than I would have base on the picture and its title, it is possible that he did so based on his personal likes. It is also possible that his choice was based on an analysis of his photo with respect to some compositional criteria. In this case, if he can share this criteria then I gain one more tool in my photographic toolbox.
I would never judge people's preferences as right or wrong. Life would indeed be very boring if we all liked the same things.

Dan,

How do I define "better"?

It may sound a bit cliché but I define it as producing photos that I like better and that, is a moving target. When I first started three years ago, I was happy with a picture that was properly focused! As I learned, my criteria for liking one of my photos became more and more technically stringent. My compositional skills followed a parallel course and I am becoming fussier and fussier about what will satisfy me. I am lucky in that I don't sell photos nor do commissions and therefore am the only customer that I have to please (I have been known to compromise for Mrs Round Tuit but one doesn't stay happily married for 49 years without the occasional compromise.)
I learn from you, from Brian, from Donald, from Manfred, from Dan(DanK), from Chris, from...
I don't post much, I don't comment much but I do read regularly, study what is there and am slowly progressing.
Now I think that I have highjacked Donald's thread long enough. Thank you both for your insightful comments.

André

[Manfred M]

When it comes to photography, there are very few aspects to an image that are not personal opinion. To a large extent, from a technical standpoint, one might argue that there will be general agreement on some of the technical aspects of an image (exposure, focus, shutter speed) and to a certain degree on how the elements are arranged in an image. Even with those basics, there will be examples where underexposed or out of focus images do work. "Rules" for landscape photography may or may not apply to studio work. That being said, knowing and understanding these rules is critical when decisions are made to break them.

The other issue is that there are fashions in photography. Currently one of the fashions is "big sky", something Donald uses a lot in his work. As with all fashions, there will be proponents and detractors of that fashion. Personal taste is the over-riding criterion most people will use when looking at images. Of course, as with all fashions, they do evolve as people try different things. What is trendy today may be something trite tomorrow. Regardless, a good image will always be a good image, regardless of the current trends.

[billtils]

What is trendy today may be something trite tomorrow.

And very much the "in thing" 5 to 15 years from now.

[NorthernFocus]

Now we really have highjacked Donald's thread. But I'm confident in his commitment to the learning environment and that he will forgive us

... knowing and understanding these rules is critical when decisions are made to break them...

Indeed understanding the "rules" is important. Notice I say understanding them, not necessarily following them. Many of the rules dealing with composition and light/color are based on how human vision/perception work. Many if not most of the rules have their origins in painting and started long before scientific study began to reveal how we visually perceive things. But the early masters were keen enough to figure out what worked and what didn't with viewers and repeated those patterns in their work. Then others recognized those patterns and document them in order to teach. And the "rules" were born. Time honored and time proven because they are rooted deep in the human psyche. Which is also why breaking the rules is sometimes extremely effective. Just as patterns help our minds quickly zero in, broken patterns also "jump out" at us. When our brains don't see what they expect it causes us to do a double take. And getting people to take the time to study an image is really what it's all about.

[ccphoto]

Reading all the responses my head was immediately filled with this old Beatles song...paraphrasing

"And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.

And when my mind is wandering
There I will go
And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong."

[ccphoto]

Any of you in the UK, most notably in the NW England, Southeast Scotland area there is a bloke there named David Byrne. If you could get him to take you under wing for a week-long editing session in B&W, I am not sure there would be a finer example of a true master. http://www.85mm.co.uk/

I have a number of his works and they are just crazy beautiful.