Vanishing Point, Chimney Bluffs

Many interesting lines... All were captured as found. Your thoughts

and critiques are appreciated.

Hate to say it but as I'm rating low I feel I should explain why.

I think I know what you wre aiming for: the classic landscape with strong foreground element and dramatic background sky, indeed often taken at the shore/coast. What amazes me with this photo's when done well is that the seem so simple but I must admit I still haven't managed to produce one that is a classic. Somehow the composition looks simple but is very delicate: size and placement of the foreground element is very delicate, if too small you loose the dymanics if too big it gets an oversized close up of a large object. Same for the backrgound. Well all together I hope I made my point clear: such landscapes are real hard to compose and a certain composiotn works or not. I think this composition works not at leat not for me. The idea of a landscape is too feel the width and enormous space out there. This image makes me feel locked in between the left and right edge of the photo. I just don't feel that the space goes on beyoind the image. And finally I think any landscape (or seascape) should have an interesting/dramatic sky as the sky most of the time will fill a large part of the image. in this photo in real life the sky might have been dramatic but the photo seems rather pale to me (over exposure?) Anyway I responded inlength on this one as it reminded me of an image i saw this week, which has kind of the same theme I guess. in case interested: http://www.timecatcher.com/dayafter.html (no it's not my photo..unfortunately I wish I could produce such images)

While I appreciate your taking the time to comment, I'm afraid your assumptions were off base. I was not at all trying for the classical landscape with clearly defined fore, mid and back grounds. In fact, there is almost no discernable midground.

I also disagree with two of your statements. Namely that a landscape needs to have a nuclear sky, and that a landscape needs to be vast. A landscape needs a nuclear sky when the photographer intends to have the sky's drama be the image's subject. A landscape needs to be vast when the photographer intends to convey vastness. I wanted neither.

A landscape is just that. A landscape. In this case, I was focusing on the strongly converging lines made by the different layers of earth, and complimented by the (as found) driftwood and even the parallel wave. The geometry in this scene is quite amazing to me, and that was the photo's intent.

I could put on a filter or tweak curves to create an artificial sky, but that would be a completely different subject. I have plenty of sky shots; this was intended to be more subtle.

I respect that everyone connects with different images, and perhaps you didn't connect with this one. Fair enough. But before providing substantial negative feedback based on generic composition formulas, it may be worth spending some extra time studying the elements and trying to understand what motivated an image. There is a world of interest beyond the classical composition if you seek it out. Not saying this image is perfect by any stretch, but all is not lost when someone ventures outside the common ground.