Erratic Rocks

[Manfred M]

Erratics or erratic rocks are a geological term that describes rocks that were picked up by glaciers during the ice age and deposited elsewhere when the glaciers retreated. The rocks in this shot came from Norway and and ended up sitting in the Gulf of Finland, just offshore in Northern Estonia.

I'm continuing my work on seascapes and this is another image I have been busily working on in post. I was never really happy with the colour version, but I do like the more toned down and simple view in B&W. I've brought out more detail in the sky and dodged and burned the rocks.

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed.

[joebranko]

Looks great un mono!

[mugge]

That is a good image, Manfred. I am trying to find something to whinge about but, nah!
Cheers Ole

[skitterbug]

I had to lighten my screen, open image in lightbox and then use the expanded version to really appreciate this one - but then WOW! Nice!

[royent]

One rock to right of centre is just kissing the horizon but that's just me being picky
Roy

[Manfred M]

One rock to right of centre is just kissing the horizon but that's just me being picky
Roy

There is absolutely no "rule" that suggests that this is either a good or a bad compositional practice. There is a "school" that prefers clean horizon lines and another that prefers the two parts of the image to be connected by either touching or extending across the horizon line. Some prefer the merest contact while others want to see a more bold and aggressive appraoch.

There is another "rule" that suggests that the horizon line should not be at or too close to the centre of the image; yet pieces by the likes of Hiroshi Sugimoto and Andreas Gursky show why this rule should never have existed.

The main issue has always whether it adds or detracts from the image and in contemporary fine art judging, this is the standard any work should be judged by. Opinions will differ...

[DanK]

I've come back to this image several times. It just didn't grab me. I think there are two reasons: it is low in contrast, and I think there is too much relatively uninteresting sky.

Just to try this out, I made three edits:

-- I increased contrast in everything other than the sky
--I increased global contrast slightly
--I cropped from the top.

This isn't a finished edit, but IMHO, it moves it in a better direction.



Not to hijack the thread, but glacial erratics are common in the Adirondacks, where I have spent a lot of time, but there they look different: they are almost all rounded granite boulders. One doesn't see many edges or sharp angles.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the feedback Dan - these are the kinds of thoughts I am looking for. I still have a few weeks before I print these, so lots of time for me to tinker.

[Wavelength]

Very nice image