Harbour marker long exposure

Excellent. Not only that, you have me wanting to get out there with my camera.
 
Yes....like that..quite ethereal
 
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say in this image, it’s devoid of reality, it is bland.

Watch how the sea behaves, its jerky actions as the tide moves in an out, you can do way better,

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say in this image, it’s devoid of reality, it is bland.

Watch how the sea behaves, its jerky actions as the tide moves in an out, you can do way better,

Ian
Click to expand...
I accept that long exposures are like marmite. I don't like marmite but I am partial to an occasional long exposure.
 
Ian Grant said:
I'm really not sure what you are trying to say in this image, it’s devoid of reality, it is bland.

Watch how the sea behaves, its jerky actions as the tide moves in an out, you can do way better,

Ian
Click to expand...
Sorry Ian, don’t agree with that. Let’s face it, for a start all mono images are devoid of reality, the world is in colour for most of us. For me, apart from being beautiful, the image is also a metaphor for time passing around the static and implacable piles. The sea isn’t winning now, but inevitably it will,,,,,given time.
 
I would also dispute that this image is "bland".

I would gently suggest two improvements for future reference. As has oft been commented here, a blank (or nearly so) sky typically fills the image geometry but does not add a lot of value. Consider shooting/editing the digital file such that that top of the image ends slightly above the top of the triangular marker, thereby filling the scene with the water and barrier structure. This would fill the image and have the secondary effect of making this a horizontal composition, more reflective of the horizon line.

Secondly, I'd consider very slightly changing the white point to make the image somewhat higher key. It's hard to tell since we have no way of determining the commonality of our respective monitor calibrations, but my sense is that moving slightly away from gray toward something slightly brighter would make the image pop.

Again, these nits. It's a fine image.
 
Well, if we are nit-picking, first of all, the horizon should be horizontal. Once seen, this won’t go away.
Long exposures are not my favourite thing, but not because of the aesthetics; my mind is immediately diverted to thoughts of “…how long. what aperture and what reciprocity.” Then on to John Blakemore.
There seems to be an imbalance between the sky and the things in the image. Or rather, too little imbalance. Each occupies about half the area.
Thronobulax‘s suggestion offers one solution. Another would be to crop off the base to just above the two posts. This restores some tension to the composition, but it may be too radical.
Now we’ve mentioned the posts, the lower, leftmost one seems very close to the edge. If possible, the camera could have been swung a little to the left to give that post a little more space (I was going to write “air to breathe” but…) This would have the additional advantage of revealing the vessel on the horizon which is cut by the frame. Although very small, it does help to hold that left-hand edge. This may be neither a practical nor useful suggestion, of course.
On my screen I have no quarrel with the tonality.
I’m not quite certain of what we mean when we ask what an image says.
 
Last edited:
I am with Ian G on this , although I don’t think it’s bland, using time it’s turned water to mist and that is what I am not keen on, I like movement to be shown in water, using less time, just enough to see texture, otherwise well done Kevin, getting the exp with an 8 ND and keeping a tight hold on the contrast .
 
martin henson said:
I am with Ian G on this , although I don’t think it’s bland, using time it’s turned water to mist and that is what I am not keen on, I like movement to be shown in water, using less time, just enough to see texture, otherwise well done Kevin, getting the exp with an 8 ND and keeping a tight hold on the contrast .
Click to expand...
Helen Summers said:
Sorry Ian, don’t agree with that. Let’s face it, for a start all mono images are devoid of reality, the world is in colour for most of us. For me, apart from being beautiful, the image is also a metaphor for time passing around the static and implacable piles. The sea isn’t winning now, but inevitably it will,,,,,given time.
Click to expand...

I would add that subjects like this need experimenting with, the sea and tides aren't fog, I just think we can do far better. Images like this actually work better.

Personally, I like Marmite, Twiglets, etc, and it is important we differ in views. I think it's not a case of one way - say a fast shutter speed,or other - a long shutter speed with an ND filter, it's looking at something in-between.

It's a difference between mediocre, and amazing, Look up fragmented exposures.

Ian
 
David M said:
<SNIP>

On my screen I have no quarrel with the tonality.
Click to expand...

Yes, I rather suspected this could be an artefact of divergent monitor calibration. In revisiting the image on a better/more carefully calibrated monitor, it looks fine. Any further changes would be more a matter of personal taste.

David M said:
I’m not quite certain of what we mean when we ask what an image says.
Click to expand...

No one does, because there is no meaningful answer to such a question. Outside the rather narrow corridors of adverts, political propaganda, and journalism, pictures just are what they are. If they speak to the artist that made them, it's a success story.

Without a lot of explanatory blathering (often hidden as an "Artist's Statement"), there are a great many fine pictures that say nothing whatsoever (abstracts, pure landscapes, shadow and light plays) and some that say a lot (Henri Cartier Bresson & Vivian Maier street work leaps to mind).

For example, here is a Blakemore I rather like and it says absolutely nothing. It is just beautiful in it's own right:


1763495189204.png

(Note that Blakemore dared also to mist up the water. The very idea ... ;)

Here's another that says nothing beautifully:

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top