Gull on the Harbour Wall, Seahouses

[Donald]

I've sort of convinced myself this works ... but am not sure. I've been looking at it for so long now (and that's maybe the answer in itself - It's not good enough!).

I'd welcome your comments.

I took this back in September and it's sat there since and I'd sort-of written it off. Then, last night, I was looking at Michael Kenna's website and, in particular, his Mont St Michel gallery and suddenly got some sort of inspiration about this image. So, I left Michael and headed off to the GIMP and produced this.

I hope (think) it's not a copy of his style, but something made me click. Ever since Rob introduced me to his work, I'm a disciple. Spent a couple of hours on his site last night. Unfortunately there is nothing about any exhibitions in the UK next year. But, Paris in springtime ....?

40D, 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM @ 26mm. ISO100. 1/30@f5.6. Manual. 2 stop GND. 7:42am

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Donald,

I am sort of with you here. I am not sure it works or the title is correct. The gull is too far away to be included in the title and I understand the leading lines, etc but there is not enough in this for me. Maybe if there was another light pole on the left hand side thirds as the first light pole also seems too far away. They do say odd numbers work better than even. Yes I think that would work - can you clone one in?

I am sure others will disagree but isn't that the good thing about photography.

[Katy Noelle]

I hope (think) it's not a copy of his style, but something made me click. Ever since Rob introduced me to his work, I'm a disciple. Spent a couple of hours on his site last night. Unfortunately there is nothing about any exhibitions in the UK next year. But, Paris in springtime ....?

After the way your winter is starting out, I think that you deserve Paris in the spring!

I'm off to check out Michael Kenna. (Boy, that name sounds familiar.....)

I like the texture in the wall and pavement!

[MiniChris]

It wasn't that the gull was so small as much as the dark boxy thing in the lower third quadrant was distracting. My eye kept going to it and it not making any sense, it just sort of started drifting. Taking photoshop liberties, I cropped the box out and came up with this version which improves the position and prominence of the gull without rgreatly or negatively changing the overall graphic impact.

[Donald]

Chris

It's always interesting (and helpful) to understand what others see in an image. I hadn't clocked that box as a distraction.

What you've done is a perfectly legitimate re-work. Your version moves the nearest light-pole closer to the right-hand vertical third, which is good. But, it also moves the bird to the centre. I'm not sure that works so well for me.

Thanks for taking the time to think about this one.

[arith]

looking at Michael Kenna's website and,

I'm a heathen, but not of the Scottish sort; more working class sort, since I don't appreciate Kenna even a little bit. I think there is much too much definition in your bridge to even be close to Kenna, you have to have a lot of jet black. How am I supposed to know that is a pigeon, it is a black dot.

I think it would be more interesting if it was wider with more sky. I think your images are better than Kenna's, I'm not impressed with definition-less black stuff I couldn't get away with, and I'm even less impressed with being told I can't see what is good, a charge mainly directed at those without a private education.

However, although I think you can read, some people obviously can't and so I will spell out: I think your photographs are remarkable, and the criticism is directed at Kenna.

Too much copying the emperor with no clothes will result in making him rich. cheers

[nerakkay]

This is a picture I took while in Freeport, Texas; my dog and I were taking a walk down Pier 8. There is not much to say about it, I did not do any editing, I like the clouds for some reason. However, I am sure it could be better. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[MiniChris]

It is below and slightly right of center and with a little more refined editing, could be made to go off center more. However, as much as there has been written about centering an object as a major no-no, sometimes I think that thinking is not always so bad. I saw an Annie Liebowitz exhibition in Austin, TX a few years ago and most of her portraits had the subject's eyes right at the edge of the frame with mountains of dead space behind them...oh, arrrgggghhhh one first thinks, but upon closer perusal, it starts to grow on you as being..."okay."
When I look at the cropped image, I see the bird as centered but I also see the sign immediately to the right as if the bird is reading it, which takes the eye to a less centered position. Also, with the nice vanishing diagonals tempered by the verticals of the poles and building, the bird is very much de-emphasized in the overall framing importance. Cropped or original, it is an intersting composition.