2010 Georgian Bay

Len, Georgian Bay looks gorgeous through your lens. Simple yet striking composition with very good color-contrast and shades of blue.

The lighting was interesting, storm & rain clouds overall with a hole for sunlight to illuminate the foreground.  I simply exposed for the foreground and let the rest fall where it may.  For me, at least, a pleasing outcome.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Best, LM.

The simplest methods often offer the best results, as the one you have described in your comment! I like the deepness and the intensity of the blue of the water, in contrast with the rocks in the foreground. The place where I live is full of views like this - on the Adriatic -  and I'm particularly fond of them. I have some doubts on the position of the horizon line: including only so small a portion of the sky doesn't fully convince me, but I don't know if the other alternatives (no sky or more sky) would be better. Regards! 

Always good to hear from you.  Your 'artistic license' moves you differently than does mine. I've included the sliver of sky for context, to show that the water is finite.  (I also like the band of different colour)  Not to say your view wouldn't work, it's just that the scene is minimalist to start with and I feel an additional element is a necessity.  Best, LM.

A very effective composition - the large, blue "negative space" against the narrow rocks  layer is clever. To include the horizon or not, that is indeed the question. Perhaps, as another layer, I would like the sky part sized complementary to the bottom part, a bit wider.

Whilst I appreciate and respect your opinions I feel the inclusion of the horizon line is essential in this one to provide a reference point that puts limits on the reach that the water has.  The scene is portayed as it was actually seen.   I will ponder the suggestion of increasing the width of the sky.  Though it is limited in the original file, additional sky should be easy to manufacture in Photoshop.  Since yours is the second respected opinion suggesting the elimination of the horizon I'm begining to doubt my original framing.  However, in the end, 'artistic license' rules and for the time being I'll leave things as they are.  Perhaps a few others will weigh in here before too long to provide a broader base of opinion.  Thanks for your time & effort.  It is always appreciated.  Best, LM.

I must agree with you Len, to me the sky needs to be there as a limit to the water, I suppose I have no "artistic license" as I'm self taught and I follow my instincts rather than having been taught, but if we really look at the bands of colour you have 5 bands, earth/grass, rocks, deep green/blue water, darker more blue water, and deep blue sky; they are all of different sizes like the strata of the earth and if they were in proportion they would loose the natural organic look/feel they give

Thanks for your visit and validation of my crop.  The scales are starting to even out on this choice though Mauro and Carsten are tough critics to defy.   My 'gut' often provides the right crop for my personality so I usually go with it.  I think the shot works OK without the sky area but I prefer it with this extra element included.  Best, LM.