Chew me up and spit me out.... what would you have done differently......

So for my shooting I do for others, I do color. But I grew up in B/W and I still prefer it. Here is a shot I did in CR a while back.... let me know what you don't like about it...

Croasdail wrote in post #19024307
So for my shooting I do for others, I do color. But I grew up in B/W and I still prefer it. Here is a shot I did in CR a while back.... let me know what you don't like about it...

Hosted photo: posted by Croasdail in
./showthread.php?p=190​24307&i=i87737970
forum: Critique Corner

.
I like it quite bit.

It is a perfect image for B&W ...... I don't see how color could possibly make it better, as it is really all about the shape and form of the subject, and is best rendered in a figure/ground manner, such as you have done.

I guess there is just one thing that I think I would have done differently:

What may have resulted in more dynamic action would be to have shot it from a bit lower perspective. . I mean, you were already low enough that the subject is mostly against the sky and not against the water in the background, which is great. . Yet I'm wondering what it would have looked like if you had taken the low angle even lower. . Imagine if his butt would be just over the horizon line, instead of sinking down into the horizon the way it is? . Wouldn't that be freaking awesome?!

But overall it an image that when I first see it I think, "cool!", whereas most images I see, the first thing I think of is what should've been done different.

I think the 8:10 vertical aspect ratio works very well with this image. . I am curious about something - what was the original aspect ratio? . Was it 3:2 vertical, or 3:2 horizontal?


.

nope... it was 3:2 standard format shot portrait, cropped to 8x10. Its about 60% of the original. Mostly cropped from the top. Shot with a 300mm.

Ironically most everything do now is 16:9 for video monitor viewing or square. I don't use 8x10 very often anymore.

Yes, I get the getting lower.... but at this point I was waste deep in the surf... I have my limits of how much faith I have in myself. That was about it. Probably could have and should have gotten lower. Anything from the beach itself was too high. Thanks for the comments.

If I recall, this was shot with the original 7D and a very old Sigma 300 f2.8... I usually take the cameras I care the least if something happened to them.... I had an eagle view finder but never felt really comfortable shooting with it.

Overall I like it quite a bit as it's a terrific action shot. I think the silhouette treatment on the surfer is the only way you could go and it works well. And I completely agree with Tom that b/w is a great choice for this.

For a little bit of artistry I would have applied more localized sharpening on the bright colored water right under the man. That's a creative decision. The large overpowering mass of the black water below bothers me a little bit. Perhaps you could brighten that area a little to bring out some modest shadow detail? Another possibility would be to leave it as is and crop off the lower 25% of the image.

Thanks for your input.... much appreciated.

sapearl wrote in post #19024609
The large overpowering mass of the black water below bothers me a little bit. Perhaps you could brighten that area a little to bring out some modest shadow detail?

+1 for this, draws my attention away and loses any sense of motion without detail there, IMO

Totally appreciate the comments here.

I may try raising the shadows some.....but when I moved to Sony I got all excited about the extended dynamic range. You could extract detail from most anything But then I realized it was also a bad thing. The concept of negative space (something I haven't mastered) is that the eyes need clues on what to look for. All that detail was creating some technically intriguing images... but they also created a lot of eye fatigue trying to figure out what was and wan't important in the image.

In this image I'm not sure raising the detail is the right thing... this wasn't about creating the most detailed image, but capturing a moment. I'm not convinced the extra detail in the wave helps, or detracts. But I will revisit it. I posted because I want to learn how others see things I am too close to.

I would really encourage others to post here.... it is good to get others perspective. If we stay in our own bubble, we don't learn. And this part of the forum has gone almost dead. Debate is goodness. Otherwise, I guess I just assume everyone has their skills perfected.... and without wanting feedback (good and bad), whats the point of posting. If you have it all mastered, just get a gallery site and and share your work.

People get way too defensive. And it seems most those that would like critique... have quit. Shame.

So feel free always on my stuff that I may post to challenge why I did what I did. Sometimes its limitations on gear, settings, are my own lack of artistic eye. Its all good. I like being forced to challenge what I have become accustomed to doing. Need to shake up the routine sometimes. Without learning, I fail to see the point of this forum.

.

sapearl wrote in post #19024609
The large overpowering mass of the black water below bothers me a little bit. Perhaps you could brighten that area a little to bring out some modest shadow detail? Another possibility would be to leave it as is and crop off the lower 25% of the image.

.

goalerjones wrote in post #19024810
+1 for this, draws my attention away and loses any sense of motion without detail there, IMO

.
I'll be the dissenter here.

I really think the bottom 1/3 of the image being dark and rather featureless works really well. . It is something that I liked immediately upon seeing the image. . It anchors the composition quite nicely, and provides much of the images's aesthetic appeal. . To my eye and to my tastes, the image wouldn't be nearly as pleasing without it.


.

Lose the white silver at the very bottom and give him more air above to fly into.

Your talking about the sea foam... if so... gotcha.... doesn't add anything.

texkam wrote in post #19026119
.
Lose the white silver at the very bottom and give him more air above to fly into.
.

.
Totally agree. Anything small spot or streak at the bottom that is lighter than its surroundings is almost always going to detract from the appeal of an image, regardless of subject matter. I am always trying ot crop that out in the foreground of my duck images.

The only reason I didn't notice that earlier is because the image is too big for me to see it all on my screen at once; I have to look at the top of the photo, then scroll down to see the bottom.

.

only thing I might do differently is straighten the horizon, but that's just me and the OP's view may have deliberately left it just a shade tilted. I wouldn't touch anything else.
=> Print.

Good effort! Just right hand is kind of odd, IMO.