Aside from the obvious technical issues, which I will do better next time out, which do you prefer, if either?
Shot under/through a railway bridge with a view of Kalk Bay Fishing Harbour. I prefer the first, though the second (cropped) version has gotten the most attention on social media. The third shot was taken one or two steps closer to the Harbour.
This is actually the same image, differently processed, and cropped in the second case, isn't it, Langa?
Both are effective compositions. I prefer the first, although it's marred by being too close to symmetrical. It would look better either more asymmetrical, or precisely symmetrical. Nearly-symmetrical images of symmetrical subjects - typically human-made structures - rarely look "right". Even though in this case it is the frame for the distant scene, it is a very dominant visual element.
The second looks over-processed to me - good for wow-factor on social media, but perhaps not long-term appeal, for which subtlety and understatement is more likely to make me linger, rather than feeling overwhelmed with excess. But others will see it differently!
Thanks Chris!
Have I mentioned how valuable your feedback is too me? It really helps me to think in the right direction.
I hadn't given thought to the symmetric/asymmetrical aspect, but it make perfect sense. Either match the symmetry or don't match it with intent, otherwise it just looks like a mistake. Makes sense and I appreciate the learning.
The second image is indeed cropped but also taken one or two steps forward from the first.
I agree on the over-processing. My preference is for the fist more natural image...but it felt off and now I think I see why.
I feel like the next attempt will be better.
Thanks again.
Langa
BTW, I'm not sure what the "obvious technical issues" you mention might be.
Not that it matters, Langa, but I'm pretty sure it's the same original here, even if you did take another image two steps in! You've piqued my curiosity by mentioning this.
The EXIF data indicates both were made at 5:57:08 AM, the waves are in exactly the same place, and the arch frames exactly the same background features. I've superimposed the two here.
:-)
Once again, I stand corrected. You have certainly proven that I need to work on my filing system (and also pay more attention to the detail). Also thanks for pointing this out, allowing me to correct the question. LOL
This 3rd image is the two steps in image I meant to post and refer to.
As for the obvious tech issues...well, and you can correct me if I am wrong..
Looking at the first one the background is exceedingly out of focus/soft. I think that is in part because I shot this image at f3.6, ISO160, ss1/500....I feel like if I had shot at something closer to f8 or 9 with a higher ISO and lower shutter speed, I might have gotten a cleaner, less out of focus shot of the vessels in the background. What do you think?
That looks like you've taken the two steps now!
BTW remember to consider editing your intro if you add images, as it can sometimes be confusing for new viewers.
The issue about the background being soft is not so obvious because of the limited resolution once the image is posted on FS. Resolution in Portfolio images is often slightly higher than in Discussions in Group posts like here (if a 10-20% higher file size is any guide).
But, yes, I'd have shot at f/8 or f/11 with your wide-angle lens here. Many would focus-stack instead of stopping down.