Bridport Jetty Version III

Very clean and inviting B&W on that big 6x7 negative - wonderful. The only improvement I might offer would be to keep reprinting it, and experiment with different grade papers, because I think you could still tone down the bright horizon somewhat and retain all the beautiful dark tonality in the foreground. Congrats on POW!

Excellent.

For me "mastery of the craft" just about sums it up.

All four edges appear quite visibly burned in, leaving the impression of a lighter rectangular shape within the composition. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this effect other than to acknowledge it as a legitimately alternative way of seeing an image executed in print. However I suspect the photograph would hold its own without such an apparent use of darkroom technique.

 

As a variation of a popular theme (I have a few of these myself), this is very well done. Rule of thirds? Centered horizon? Bah, humbug. I hadn't noticed 'til it was pointed out so it must be irrelevant.

 

(Standard Disclaimer: This is not a critique. I no longer participate in photo.net critiques. If anyone asks, I was never here.)

I'm familiar with most of the scenery in many of John's images, because I live in the same place; the beautiful island state of Tasmania (the world's best kept secret).

This capture of the jetty at Bridport is very good indeed!

Upon close inspection, I think you will find that, although close, the horizon is not quite at the center of this composition...

Congratulations John and keep up the good work of showing off our wonderful part of the planet - looking forward to more of your 4x5" images.

My immediate response was "havent we had this photo as PoW before?" Then I remembered the pic by Jeff Alu http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=353429. It was slightly different - skinnier sticks, less contrast etc. But still, sticks in water, horizon on the 50% line. I think given the diversity of photographs present on ths site, you could be forgiven for thinking we may have "done" this theme/composition before.

A. The horizon line is below centre, not on centre. Not even close.

B. It is the horizontal tonal masses that dominate this image (not this or that 'line'). To which pier remnants provide powerful contrapuntal picture elements.

In short, the image 'breaks' no 'rules', but instead demonstrates a good understanding and use of classical compositional principals.

The photo is better than average, thanks to the wonderful white center mass (unfortunately blown here) above the horizon and very strong perspective, although I question the cropping (and the heavy framing, drop shadow and placement of the artist's name are distractions). There is also an oddly rectangular vignetting effect that appears photoshopped, and could have been handled with more subtlety.

This is far from being an unconventional composition!

Excellent tonality, John, a great image. Silky yet powerful. The space between the foreground poles and the rest, as Scott observed, is key.

John

 

Excellent photo. I have never studied photography. I have never belonged to a camera club. I have never gone ga ga over Ansel Adams perfection in his images. I have never had someone tell me what rules apply to taking a perfect photo. To me, a photo nears perfection, but never attains it. What I have found that with a lack of rules, I am able to capture images how I want to perceive them, not how I "should" perceive them. My photographic mentor is a guy by the name of Ken Duncan in Australia, and his number one rule is break the rules. He is an exponent of putting the horizon in a picture where ever he feels like it. One of my pictures at least on this forum has been criticised for leaving the horizon dead middle. Some of my photos don't have a horizon at all, and I think that they still work. Once again, excellent shot.

Congrats John! A strong graphic image with a nice 'timeless/infinity' feel to it. Real nice.

See Michael Kenna. He's been photographing "sticks in water" for years. The image is technically brilliant but originality is on par with sunsets, rivers captured with a slow speed blur, and ubiquitous flower close-ups.

...those elves must be off with the pixies ;) because if it were centered (which it clearly isn't) I think you would have had a notably weaker image. For me, the rule holds here.

A well-deserved recipient of the POW, if I ever saw one. The more photography I do, the more composition becomes a sense of feel rather than of rules. If the feel happens to either coincide with or break the rules, so be it. The US Supreme Court once defined pornography as (paraphrasing), I know it when I see it. Well, effective composition is, I think, much the same: you know an effective composition when you see it. (No I'm not trying to compare John's fine work to porn.) Here all the elements converge in just such a way to make this photo very coherent and extremely pleasing aesthetically: it just works. I'm very happy for you John. Congratulations.

It's a nice photo, in spite of what appears to be a fogbank in the background--notoriously hard to render as other than an amorphous white mass when seen from outside. I don't know why this photo works, but it does. I like the texture on the pilings and the overall composition, but I cannot say why. Perhaps the tranquil sea portends a nice, tranquil week of discussion.

I'm puzzled by a remark from Back Shooter about the central white mass being "blown?" On my monitor the area is appropriately rendered. If an area is white, shouldn't it be rendered as such? This is rather like criticizing a photograph of a desert or snow scene for having no solid blacks.

 

Just as notions regarding the arbitrary imposition of a rule of thirds should often be ignored, so too should notions that a photograph must meet certain nonsensical standards for tonal range.

Mama didn't raise no mathematician, and the composition doesn't bother me, but I wouldn't say it was clearly uncenterd although the word "central" maybe, would have been more accurate.

Lex, there are no "rules". Anyone can buy a camera, close their eyes, randomly aim it and snap the shutter. This doesn't really require any thought, knowledge, creativity, talent or originality, does it? If you want to try and reinvent the wheel by ignoring what others have already done, good luck with that, but I prefer an additive process.

wow ! simple composition but really efficient... really an excellent shot IMO.

ok. More proof I'm not mathematically inclined. The cross hairs on this one are centered. In the prior one they are...er...central.

 

 

 

eyeballing.

My answer to the question

"...dont place the horizon in the center of the frame. Yet, it suceeds as an image of power and determination. Why? "

is that the rule is a guideline to give more dynamic to a composition, and emphasize the subject in relation to the background.

In this image the subject IS convergence, and saticism (sp?) as opposed to dynasm. Symmetry is integral to portrayal of same.

Yes, I would have done the same thing.

Do I get partial marks?

The photo is about symettry in my view. The symettry extends to the light and dark balance, from the edges of the photo towards the center. The darker bottom part shades into lighter as you go higher in the photo. The light at the top shades into dark as you go towards the (not so) central spot. The perspective of the posts leads your eye to this center spot. It should be lighter than the darker edges, I think.

This is an easy, relaxing photo to view. Good for a Monday morning. OOHHHMMMMMM. There is no angst or disagreeable feature to cause disharmony.

The contrast on the posts is like icing on the cake. Each post is a tasty morsel of eye candy by itself. (brown sugar, perhaps, but just as sweet.)

Congratulations on having your photo chosen as POW.

this photo has some nice tones and the final product is pleasant but, the subject and composition are more basic than breakthrough...no? the cyber border and drop shadow are distracting as well. somebody mentioned a rectangle left by the burning, that kinda sticks out too. nice work though, congrats.

I like the symmetry and toning. The black at bottom doesn't bother me. I don't think it's that dark and I think it accents the tonality change from dark to light. I think the edited versions with the cross hairs are rather a nitpick. The shot is beautiful

I think the main use of composition rules in photography (especially trivial rules like "no center" and "3 thirds") is to remind people about the fact that there can be some composition in a picture... This mostly applies to beginners and to vacation snapshots with the head of grandma dead center and half of the frame pure blue. So if somebody thinks about a rule - any rule - then composes the picture in some way - any way - the rule helped.

 

I don't think it's important to know if the horizon in this picture is centered or not. The composition works, that's the important thing.

 

Congrats John.

Congratulations, John, on being lofted on to the pedestal this week. This is a very fine image, which viewed 'large' does indeed have a mellowing effect on the soul. My only quibble is that the left post looks a bit cramped near the edge. A bit more breathing space would have been nice. Perhaps a wider format, similar to 35mm, would work better? I think the 2nd post on the left looks like a soldier wearing a beret, up to his knees in the sea and looking down at the water. (It's been a long day...) And what's that black thing hovering above the 4th post on the right? It can't be a seabird with this slow shutter speed, surely? An unwanted foreign body? (I didn't think they were allowed into Australia!) Anyway, lovely pic, but I agree the frame is a bit distracting. I honestly don't know why anyone bothers with them on the internet. I mean, if you hang a picture on the wall then you need a frame for protection as well as presentation. But here, looking at these tiny pixillated images against a white screen on a monitor it strikes me as a curious and pointless affectation. Who goes around looking at frames anyway?! If a photo is good, I never even notice if it has a frame (unless it's a distracting one like this!) I sense the moderator's finger twitching over the 'delete' key, for fear of a lengthy irrelevant thread on the merits of picture frames, so I'd better stop. Best regards.

Congrats John!

Placing the horizon so close to the center worked in this image because of the two poles plus the horizon forms a very strong "H" type of composition. Much like the architecture of a building. Strong, solid and firm.

Yes given the chance I would compose it this way too.