Sunset Photo, CC please

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Click to expand...

When you crop something like the bottom right, you want to be very careful to get it exact. I think perhaps you were thinking exact 2:1 ratio, but I crop at will, solve it later.

check the bottom right corner. nothing takes your eye up, down, in, out; even a tiny bit if it is exact.

The angled line of the rock/water 'runs' your eye up to the lighthouse, which is why I prefer this to the crop below. The horizon is in the middle, often not good, but here, I think the strong angles let it work well as is.

elliottnewcomb said:

I think it's beautiful and will make a great print.

If it were mine, I might want to delete some of the foreground and have a more panoramic result. That might create problems if printing needs to be in a standard size, but I like that image also.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

OK, I'll chime in. As subsequent posts have shown, each approach has its support and the OP will ultimately have the final say.

I too understand Elliott's comments about the strong leading lines in his crop. I agree that they are effective in leading one's eye to the lighthouse. However, that crop leaves about 40% of the image in the foreground rocks that contain relatively little useful information that detract, in my opinion, from the interest in the balance of the image. The panoramic crop also contains useful leading lines, albeit less of them, while focusing one's eye on the main subjects of the image. It's still my choice.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Think I would be happy either way

I do less a little more water than I would like with the 3:1 crop so for that reason the 2:1 with Elliot's corner point
I do like the smooth water (used an nd filter for that exposure) and the reflection
I agree the rocks are not of much visual interest

However after reviewing canvas sizes with the vendor I use; my choices are really limited to 10" x 20" or 12" x 36" (there are larger sizes too but was not planning on going huge with this one)
Think I will go with the 12" x 36" size similar to Harvey's crop for this reason

I do appreciate the comments all!

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Click to expand...

When you crop something like the bottom right, you want to be very careful to get it exact. I think perhaps you were thinking exact 2:1 ratio, but I crop at will, solve it later.

check the bottom right corner. nothing takes your eye up, down, in, out; even a tiny bit if it is exact.

The angled line of the rock/water 'runs' your eye up to the lighthouse, which is why I prefer this to the crop below. The horizon is in the middle, often not good, but here, I think the strong angles let it work well as is.

elliottnewcomb said:

I think it's beautiful and will make a great print.

If it were mine, I might want to delete some of the foreground and have a more panoramic result. That might create problems if printing needs to be in a standard size, but I like that image also.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

Here's a compromised crop. It works for me. I think it is a better balance of the foreground & the rest of the image. kev



--
I just think that things should work the way I expect them to.

Lovely sunset! What Bill did intensifying the clouds works well here to help neutralize the punch of the sun. The white tones on the light house and red light really enhance the scene as do the soft tones in the rocky foreground. Will make a nice print!

David

Harvey Rawn said:

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Click to expand...

When you crop something like the bottom right, you want to be very careful to get it exact. I think perhaps you were thinking exact 2:1 ratio, but I crop at will, solve it later.

check the bottom right corner. nothing takes your eye up, down, in, out; even a tiny bit if it is exact.

The angled line of the rock/water 'runs' your eye up to the lighthouse, which is why I prefer this to the crop below. The horizon is in the middle, often not good, but here, I think the strong angles let it work well as is.

Harvey Rawn said:

I think it's beautiful and will make a great print.

If it were mine, I might want to delete some of the foreground and have a more panoramic result. That might create problems if printing needs to be in a standard size, but I like that image also.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

OK, I'll chime in. As subsequent posts have shown, each approach has its support and the OP will ultimately have the final say.

I too understand Elliott's comments about the strong leading lines in his crop. I agree that they are effective in leading one's eye to the lighthouse. However, that crop leaves about 40% of the image in the foreground rocks that contain relatively little useful information that detract, in my opinion, from the interest in the balance of the image. The panoramic crop also contains useful leading lines, albeit less of them, while focusing one's eye on the main subjects of the image. It's still my choice.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

I like the top shot best. It does have a nice "Eye Flow" to it and shows the light house in context to it's position/surroundings. Pano makes it sorta Dull

--
Bill
Bill's Photos

Bill Borne said:

Harvey Rawn said:

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Click to expand...

When you crop something like the bottom right, you want to be very careful to get it exact. I think perhaps you were thinking exact 2:1 ratio, but I crop at will, solve it later.

check the bottom right corner. nothing takes your eye up, down, in, out; even a tiny bit if it is exact.

The angled line of the rock/water 'runs' your eye up to the lighthouse, which is why I prefer this to the crop below. The horizon is in the middle, often not good, but here, I think the strong angles let it work well as is.

Bill Borne said:

I think it's beautiful and will make a great print.

If it were mine, I might want to delete some of the foreground and have a more panoramic result. That might create problems if printing needs to be in a standard size, but I like that image also.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

OK, I'll chime in. As subsequent posts have shown, each approach has its support and the OP will ultimately have the final say.

I too understand Elliott's comments about the strong leading lines in his crop. I agree that they are effective in leading one's eye to the lighthouse. However, that crop leaves about 40% of the image in the foreground rocks that contain relatively little useful information that detract, in my opinion, from the interest in the balance of the image. The panoramic crop also contains useful leading lines, albeit less of them, while focusing one's eye on the main subjects of the image. It's still my choice.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

I like the top shot best. It does have a nice "Eye Flow" to it and shows the light house in context to it's position/surroundings. Pano makes it sorta Dull

Click to expand...

Not to defend my suggested crop, but I think the issue/choice is:

original & my suggested crop retain enough foreground that the lighthouse is more primary, the sun and sky beautifully far back.

The Panorama crop, very nice, removes much of the foreground, changes the 'depth' of the photo, making the sun and sky more primary than the lighthouse.

Bill Borne said:

--
Bill
Bill's Photos

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

elliottnewcomb said:

Bill Borne said:

Harvey Rawn said:

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Click to expand...

When you crop something like the bottom right, you want to be very careful to get it exact. I think perhaps you were thinking exact 2:1 ratio, but I crop at will, solve it later.

check the bottom right corner. nothing takes your eye up, down, in, out; even a tiny bit if it is exact.

The angled line of the rock/water 'runs' your eye up to the lighthouse, which is why I prefer this to the crop below. The horizon is in the middle, often not good, but here, I think the strong angles let it work well as is.

elliottnewcomb said:

I think it's beautiful and will make a great print.

If it were mine, I might want to delete some of the foreground and have a more panoramic result. That might create problems if printing needs to be in a standard size, but I like that image also.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

OK, I'll chime in. As subsequent posts have shown, each approach has its support and the OP will ultimately have the final say.

I too understand Elliott's comments about the strong leading lines in his crop. I agree that they are effective in leading one's eye to the lighthouse. However, that crop leaves about 40% of the image in the foreground rocks that contain relatively little useful information that detract, in my opinion, from the interest in the balance of the image. The panoramic crop also contains useful leading lines, albeit less of them, while focusing one's eye on the main subjects of the image. It's still my choice.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

I like the top shot best. It does have a nice "Eye Flow" to it and shows the light house in context to it's position/surroundings. Pano makes it sorta Dull

Click to expand...

Not to defend my suggested crop, but I think the issue/choice is:

original & my suggested crop retain enough foreground that the lighthouse is more primary, the sun and sky beautifully far back.

The Panorama crop, very nice, removes much of the foreground, changes the 'depth' of the photo, making the sun and sky more primary than the lighthouse.

elliottnewcomb said:

--
Bill
Bill's Photos

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

We can all add our edits, advise , etc but in the end

It's All in the Eye of the Beholder.... ;-)

--
Bill
Bill's Photos

elliottnewcomb said:

Bill Borne said:

Harvey Rawn said:

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Click to expand...

When you crop something like the bottom right, you want to be very careful to get it exact. I think perhaps you were thinking exact 2:1 ratio, but I crop at will, solve it later.

check the bottom right corner. nothing takes your eye up, down, in, out; even a tiny bit if it is exact.

The angled line of the rock/water 'runs' your eye up to the lighthouse, which is why I prefer this to the crop below. The horizon is in the middle, often not good, but here, I think the strong angles let it work well as is.

elliottnewcomb said:

I think it's beautiful and will make a great print.

If it were mine, I might want to delete some of the foreground and have a more panoramic result. That might create problems if printing needs to be in a standard size, but I like that image also.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

OK, I'll chime in. As subsequent posts have shown, each approach has its support and the OP will ultimately have the final say.

I too understand Elliott's comments about the strong leading lines in his crop. I agree that they are effective in leading one's eye to the lighthouse. However, that crop leaves about 40% of the image in the foreground rocks that contain relatively little useful information that detract, in my opinion, from the interest in the balance of the image. The panoramic crop also contains useful leading lines, albeit less of them, while focusing one's eye on the main subjects of the image. It's still my choice.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Click to expand...

I like the top shot best. It does have a nice "Eye Flow" to it and shows the light house in context to it's position/surroundings. Pano makes it sorta Dull

Click to expand...

Not to defend my suggested crop, but I think the issue/choice is:

original & my suggested crop retain enough foreground that the lighthouse is more primary, the sun and sky beautifully far back.

The Panorama crop, very nice, removes much of the foreground, changes the 'depth' of the photo, making the sun and sky more primary than the lighthouse.

elliottnewcomb said:

--
Bill
Bill's Photos

Click to expand...

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

Interesting observation, Elliott, and I kind of agree with you. The sun and sky are the brightest objects in the image and are primary in all of the versions. The Panorama crop does change the depth of the photo, drawing me more into the relationship among the lighthouse and the sun and ocean.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Here you go. My editing plus horizon on 1/3 line. Vic

Harvey and Elliot you both make great points.

After being close to done and going with a 3:1 size mainly because I liked both and could get a larger size still within budget for this proportion.

I read Elliot's recent comments and do weigh heavily the sense of distance he mentions.

Elliot and Harvey: you both have great vision on how to crop/compose which I am sure comes from years of experience and I think you for sharing as well as everyone else for the helpful advise.

I made a few more edits and am officially done, I am taking a chance by ordering a split canvas (12" x 16" and 20" x 16") for a total size of 16" x 32". I went with Elliot's advise and was very careful in the bottom right corner.

Cost was still low and splitting the picture is risky but always been curious to try that and see how it works with 2 gallery wraps. Have seen examples that work well with 3, but 2 we will see.

If anyone cares I can post a pic of the finished result.

Below is the edited final file

I did add more contrast and detail since many seemed to opt for that but kept it primarily to the sky and mid tones ; am not trying to get all the rocks in perfect detail on this as I striving for more of a moody look than an everything as sharp as possible landscape. Warmed up the rocks to get them less blue/more grey. There was limited light at the time I was there so this is close to reality. Added a little more color to the sky but tried not to go overboard as it probably was not quite as colorful as this at the time.

mreynolds767 said:

Harvey and Elliot you both make great points.

After being close to done and going with a 3:1 size mainly because I liked both and could get a larger size still within budget for this proportion.

I read Elliot's recent comments and do weigh heavily the sense of distance he mentions.

Elliot and Harvey: you both have great vision on how to crop/compose which I am sure comes from years of experience and I think you for sharing as well as everyone else for the helpful advise.

I made a few more edits and am officially done, I am taking a chance by ordering a split canvas (12" x 16" and 20" x 16") for a total size of 16" x 32". I went with Elliot's advise and was very careful in the bottom right corner.

Cost was still low and splitting the picture is risky but always been curious to try that and see how it works with 2 gallery wraps. Have seen examples that work well with 3, but 2 we will see.

If anyone cares I can post a pic of the finished result.

Below is the edited final file

I did add more contrast and detail since many seemed to opt for that but kept it primarily to the sky and mid tones ; am not trying to get all the rocks in perfect detail on this as I striving for more of a moody look than an everything as sharp as possible landscape. Warmed up the rocks to get them less blue/more grey. There was limited light at the time I was there so this is close to reality. Added a little more color to the sky but tried not to go overboard as it probably was not quite as colorful as this at the time.

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You have an excellent result. Yes, please do post a photo of the finished result.

--
Harvey
Write with light

Thanks Harvey!

Will take a picture on a wall, order placed this is the final sharpened file sent to the printer.

mreynolds767 said:

Thanks Harvey!

Will take a picture on a wall, order placed this is the final sharpened file sent to the printer.

Click to expand...

It's a Winner, how long must we wait to see it on the wall?

--
Elliott

Elliot: Been using CG pro prints as my work has an account with their parent company so I can use them (they advertise as being for the trade / professional photographers only)

Not sure how much they do or do not enforce that but I do know they have outstanding print quality for canvas, amazingly cheap prices and ship fast.

Will be done this week but has to ship across the country so I am likely 2 weeks from posting a finished result picture.

Thanks again for your help fine tuning this Elliot!

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Thinking of having this one printed, so would love to hear any thoughts on possible improvements.

Spend a good deal of time working on this already but open to changes.

I left it purposely a little dark on purpose but that may not appeal to all.

Newport, RI

(there are actually 2 lighthouses in this shot, but a web resolution it is hard to see the 2nd one)

Click to expand...

Another beauty, I like leaving it a little dark.

Marti, if you view the original, and magnify it, you will see, the right side of the horizon line appears to be far away land, of very low height, which gives it the effect of visually rising up on the right. At a larger size, it may not have that effect.

Click to expand...

Elliott I have seen that land part, imho the Image is slightly tilted ...Not biggy.

elliottnewcomb said:

'I see a red door and I want it painted black'. What the heck is that thing sprouting from the right side of the lighthouse? I want it painted sky!

As an alternate, I might crop a bit of the bottom, so the rock/water diagonal line dies perfectly in the corner, which would also make the shot appear wider.

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2*
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

I absolutely loved this thread, the original excellent photo, and the eb and flow of the ideas from the thread contributors.

I cannot contribute anything technical, or add to the suggestions, but I do want to share more of a philosophical view.

I took a photograph last fall of a scene in Glaciar National Park using my Sony RX10. As I explored the possible avenues for editing, cropping, applying filter layers and so on, I discovered that I was treating the photograph more as a starting point for a piece of artwork. (Bear with me here.. these are my thoughts, not that I think my photograph would rightfully hang in a professional gallery). I then started to question where the photography / cheeting reality line resides. I really struggled with this because I knew I wanted a nice large print that correctly captures the emotions and experience of that epic hike, but I wanted it to be realistic too.

I decided that I would use the tools at my dispoasl to transform the pixels created by my camera to best portray what my heart said it should look like. So, out when the airline comtrail, out went the off-cast color due to the fact that I shot a bit underexposed, up came the shaddows so that the distant trees could be more readily identified. You get the idea.

Is the photograph "real" at that point? Well, yes and no. I made conscious decisions to keep the vast majority of the pixels exactly as the camera had created them, while others had to change for the final image to best represent my mental image.

How do you view your image now? Are you trying to make an image that would look good on a wall? Or are you making an image that best represents the mental image of that moment in time and place that takes you back to that moment? Would cropping out this and that, changing the aspect ratio of the image and so on influence the emotional impact of that incredible scene?

Marti58 said:

elliottnewcomb said:

mreynolds767 said:

Thinking of having this one printed, so would love to hear any thoughts on possible improvements.

Spend a good deal of time working on this already but open to changes.

I left it purposely a little dark on purpose but that may not appeal to all.

Newport, RI

(there are actually 2 lighthouses in this shot, but a web resolution it is hard to see the 2nd one)

Click to expand...

Another beauty, I like leaving it a little dark.

Marti, if you view the original, and magnify it, you will see, the right side of the horizon line appears to be far away land, of very low height, which gives it the effect of visually rising up on the right. At a larger size, it may not have that effect.

Click to expand...

Elliott I have seen that land part, imho the Image is slightly tilted ...Not biggy.

Member said:

'I see a red door and I want it painted black'. What the heck is that thing sprouting from the right side of the lighthouse? I want it painted sky!

As an alternate, I might crop a bit of the bottom, so the rock/water diagonal line dies perfectly in the corner, which would also make the shot appear wider.

--
Elliott

Click to expand...

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2*
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

Click to expand...

I downloaded and checked it...not tilted!

--
Bill
Bill's Photos

IMO (it ain't humble).

you think too much!!! you are simply capturing light.

what goes onto the film, or comes out of the camera's digital recording is simply a combination of the current camera manufacturer's, and your learned ability to understand and deal with the light that exists. We chase equipment to 'improve' one part of that process.

DRO, HDR, stitching Panoramas, post manipulation of exposures, etc, are the next level of acquired skills, a combination of the software manufacturer's current skills, and yours. We chase software to 'improve' one part of that process.

Crop to show only what you want to show. Use acquired PP skills at will, modify the technical capture anyway you want/can without hesitation.

When I use in-camera High Contrast B&W, (or in-camera Watercolor effect) the initial capture of light is not reality, it is what the camera CAN do, and what I WANT it to do!!! Out of Camera is no different.

We produce (manufacture) 'something' we can remember, others can see. Are you a Photographic Artist, Photographer, Snap Shooter, cell phone selfie artist? Subjective, and self imposed thinking.

Anything you put on your wall or put your name on should look pleasing to you
Others advise can really help because tgings missed on a screen or small print become obvious at large sizes
For me that means using all tools available in camera or on the computer

For example the ocean in this photo
I used in camera a 10 stop nd filter so it would look smooth, I prefer that but in reality the ocean had waves at the time as my other exposures appear but at the site my eyes were not paying attention to the water

I am not talented enough to call myself an artist or a fine art photographer but the work I like the most and hope to someday come close to are definitely edited photos

If after seeing a memorable scene you returned home and were asked to describe it or draw it you would exaggerate or at least focus on the elements that you remembered most, my photos serve as those memories
I think there is plenty of room to edit without affecting reality

For me there is a line in the realm of composites that takes reality into pure artwork only

My short answer to your comment related to your photowould be

Adding a bear into your scene would be changing reality into art otherwise edit to your hearts content to best reflect what you saw and felt that day