Critique Please - 2

This is a second photo at Cape Flattery, Washington. Same basic scene with the colorful cliff and seagulls flying by, but further inland from the first as the first.

 

Thanks for you comments!

 

Mick

This appeals to me more than the other photo you posted as there’s a story unfolding and the mossy background is a strong supporting feature without feeling like it’s the main event. There’s more suggestion of depth and shape here, as the water has a bit more weight than the other shot. Still, I’d work to bring that sense of depth to more fruition. Without more depth, it feels like I’m looking at a more two-dimensional backdrop. The story of the gulls is present but gets lost. I don’t know there’s much you can do about that now, especially as the gulls have little to no detail and seem to have been blown out by your exposure. The gulls also seem out of focus which is a loss which might have been avoided by a different kind of exposure. The depth of your colors here is richer to my eye, a plus. Your signature is a problem for me, disrupting the pleasure of a bucolic scene. I’d get it off the image and include it under the photo. If you’re using it as a watermark to prevent theft, it can easily be cloned out, so it’s not really serving much purpose other than to distract from the mood of the photo.

This appeals to me more than the other photo you posted as there’s a story unfolding and the mossy background is a strong supporting feature without feeling like it’s the main event. There’s more suggestion of depth and shape here, as the water has a bit more weight than the other shot. Still, I’d work to bring that sense of depth to more fruition. Without more depth, it feels like I’m looking at a more two-dimensional backdrop. The story of the gulls is present but gets lost. I don’t know there’s much you can do about that now, especially as the gulls have little to no detail and seem to have been blown out by your exposure. The gulls also seem out of focus which is a loss which might have been avoided by a different kind of exposure. The depth of your colors here is richer to my eye, a plus. Your signature is a problem for me, disrupting the pleasure of a bucolic scene. I’d get it off the image and include it under the photo. If you’re using it as a watermark to prevent theft, it can easily be cloned out, so it’s not really serving much purpose other than to distract from the mood of the photo.

 

Thanks for your feedback Sam. The darker areas at the bottom of the photo are actually the cliff walls that are stained by who knows what? I agree that the gulls are blown out and will likely revisit this photo to see if I can manage to fix the issues brought up here. I also get your comment about the signature and have found it somewhat distracting to me as well.

This appeals to me more than the other photo you posted as there’s a story unfolding and the mossy background is a strong supporting feature without feeling like it’s the main event. There’s more suggestion of depth and shape here, as the water has a bit more weight than the other shot. Still, I’d work to bring that sense of depth to more fruition. Without more depth, it feels like I’m looking at a more two-dimensional backdrop. The story of the gulls is present but gets lost. I don’t know there’s much you can do about that now, especially as the gulls have little to no detail and seem to have been blown out by your exposure. The gulls also seem out of focus which is a loss which might have been avoided by a different kind of exposure. The depth of your colors here is richer to my eye, a plus. Your signature is a problem for me, disrupting the pleasure of a bucolic scene. I’d get it off the image and include it under the photo. If you’re using it as a watermark to prevent theft, it can easily be cloned out, so it’s not really serving much purpose other than to distract from the mood of the photo.

 

Looking back at the RAW copy of this photo I see that the dark areas of the cliff roughly correspond to the high tide levels.

There is no focal point here, it is difficult to detect subject. Sorry:(

There is no focal point here, it is difficult to detect subject. Sorry:(

 

I thought I captured the cliff as the subject. That said, I guess that you and Sam are both on the same track - two dimensional - no focal point. It's a flat cliff albeit colored.

 

You've given me much food for thought.

I don’t think all photos need a subject. Sometimes, the photo itself is enough subject without an actual focal point within the image. So, the patterns on the cliff here could be the subject, the atmosphere could be the subject, my eyes being lead through the mosses and rocks could be the purpose of the photo, ... What, for me, presents a problem here are the birds, which seem to want my attention but don’t offer much. Without the birds, and with some more interesting dynamics and treatment of shapes and lights and darks, there could very well be a photo of interest here, subject or not.

I don’t think all photos need a subject. Sometimes, the photo itself is enough subject without an actual focal point within the image. So, the patterns on the cliff here could be the subject, the atmosphere could be the subject, my eyes being lead through the mosses and rocks could be the purpose of the photo, ... What, for me, presents a problem here are the birds, which seem to want my attention but don’t offer much. Without the birds, and with some more interesting dynamics and treatment of shapes and lights and darks, there could very well be a photo of interest here, subject or not.

 

That, the cliff, was actually my purpose for taking the shot and I subsequently saw the birds as additive, but as you noted they are bown out. I was playing with the image to remove the birds to see what I had left. I'll continue that to see if I can salvage the shots.

I do really appreciate the critique.

That, the cliff, was actually my purpose for taking the shot and I subsequently saw the birds as additive, but as you noted they are bown out. I was playing with the image to remove the birds to see what I had left. I'll continue that to see if I can salvage the shots.

I do really appreciate the critique.

 

I DO like the character of the cliff

I am working around rocky island for last 20 years, from my experience if you shooting cliffs, you have two options: get close

or move further out to show the size

from my experience if you shooting cliffs, you have two options

Perhaps two, or perhaps the options are infinite ...

Perhaps two, or perhaps the options are infinite ...

In between usually boring

Here is a cliff that I took in 2001 in Alberta, Canada on the Bow Valley trail. I had a crappy camera and had to scan the print so the digital copy leaves a lot to be desired. I do think it has a better composition. Wish I would have had a decent camera as this does not do the scene justice.

In between usually boring

 

Hi Nick.

 

Good tips. I do especially like your cliff closeup above and the last one with the tiered sections. I think your tips align quite well with Sam's in that there is no depth to my shots (foreground, background... 2) and no focal point. I've taken some time to look at my other photos and some from other photographers and see that I can improve these two shots. I took these shots about 10 years ago when I got my first DSLR and was trying to get back into photography; I had a lot of bad results. I like to think that I am more conscious of composition than I was then. I edited these two as they were which was hard because I had changed the camera settings without understanding the impact. I am going to edit the gulls out and see what I have. Hopefully, I can bring the colors and character in the cliff to life.

 

Thanks guys!

Update the two photos, dropped the birds and the signature. I still like the colors in the cliffs.

I still prefer Critique 1 (without the bird).