Sunrise over the Bay

Please let me know what you think.

John - you absolutely nailed this. I cannot see where any critique could be offered. You have every ingredient of a fantastic sunrise here displayed in a manner which cannot be improved upon. I had to rate anonymously - used up my 7s today :( Cheers -

John, you have some great photography in your portfolio, but I don't think this shot is up to par with most of your work.

Brian - You've judged this piece against the other photos in John's body of work. I don't believe the rating system defined by photo.net was devised with that approach in mind.

 

From the photo.net "rule book" - Reasons for a rating closer to 7:

 

*looks good

*attracts/holds attention

*interesting composition

*great use of color

*(if photojournalism) drama, humor, impact

*(if sports) peak moment, struggle of athlete

 

 

Your rating of 4 - Average for Aesthetics is noncommittal. Can you look at this photo and say it doesn't look good? That it doesn't attract attention? That the composition isn't interesting? That the color palette isn't good?

 

Furthermore, if you still contend that this photo deserves a 4-Average rating for Aesthetics and choose to rate it directly (a strong statement in my book), why not tell John and interested photo.net members why? Which elements of a good photograph are missing here: composition? tonality? texture? DOF? etc.

 

I write this because it disturbs me that the rating system, the foundation of the idea exchange at photo.net, might have differing interpretations when it absolutely needs to be deployed in a consistent manner if it is to have any meaning.

 

These are my thoughts. Yours, and everyone else's, are most welcome.

Alberta,

 

First of all, my rating of this shot was certainly based on this shot alone. My comment on John's portfolio was based on it's strengths.

Secondly, my judgment for Landscape photography, whether it's someone else's work, or my own, certainly is not judged in a "consistent manner".

 

Since I did rate this in the open, and got questioned about it, I'll certainly give my thoughts. The exposure is rather disturbing. The shadow detail is non-existent, as well as the extreme highlight detail. The reflection in the water is off concerning the tones and exposure. There is no point of interest. Nothing grabs me, and takes me into the shot. Concerning the overall composition, I think maybe cropping the bottom 1/3 would be more effective. The square format just really doesn't work for me with this image, as the bottom is waisted space.

I stand by my rating.

 

John, certainly no disrespect. As I stated , you have an AWESOME portfolio.

Thanks for elaborating. You are certainly entitled to rate and critique as you see fit, as are all of us. I'm a happier camper knowing the details of the why. Technically, your points make sense to me and even sound valid. At the end of day, however, when I look at a photo like this one that I connect with on an emotional level, the tecnhicals just don't matter. That's what makes the world go round :) Cheers -

Beautiful bayscape, John!

Beautiful landscape,John. I like the composition and colors.

It appears that the reflection of the trees on the lower right side of the photos do not match...

 

... is it just me?

It is odd. I did not remove them. I'm not that good at PS yet, to rebuild that cloud. It must be the downward angle of the camera. It is not as obvious but on the left hand edge there is more tree shown in the foreground reflection than in the "real" background.