Pier: It was a beautiful morning.

Bushido Loc: No Where and Every Where

It was a beautiful morning.

Not to be copied

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Great shot, great sky and light. Magic clouds.
Cutting the bottom 50% off the pic strengthens all the great points and makes it 500% better overall. Just under the wave at the bottom of the pier.
I am a firm advocate of using foregrounds but in this case I think the foreground lessens the image.

Bushido Loc: No Where and Every Where

Eliminating part of the foreground has merit. However the depth of the image seems to be diminished. No longer can the viewer tell how far the pier reaches out into the ocean. What are your thoughts after seeing both crops?

lighthouse wrote:

Great shot, great sky and light. Magic clouds.
Cutting the bottom 50% off the pic strengthens all the great points and makes it 500% better overall. Just under the wave at the bottom of the pier.
I am a firm advocate of using foregrounds but in this case I think the foreground lessens the image.

Heirloom Tomato Loc: Oregon

Bushido wrote:

Eliminating part of the foreground has merit. However the depth of the image seems to be diminished. No longer can the viewer tell how far the pier reaches out into the ocean. What are your thoughts after seeing both crops?

I vote for the original image as presented. I need to see that ocean expanse. It makes the photo more interesting to me. This photo has gorgeous colors and looks a bit mysterious. I want to see the pier in the distance, not "closer."

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

My thoughts - Nowhere near enough cropped off.
Can I show you the crop that I mean?

Bushido wrote:

Eliminating part of the foreground has merit. However the depth of the image seems to be diminished. No longer can the viewer tell how far the pier reaches out into the ocean. What are your thoughts after seeing both crops?

Bushido Loc: No Where and Every Where

Yes.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Bushido wrote:

Eliminating part of the foreground has merit. However the depth of the image seems to be diminished. No longer can the viewer tell how far the pier reaches out into the ocean. What are your thoughts after seeing both crops?

Both are nice but they're different and tell different stories. The actual capture and the processing are very high quality so it supports multiple interpretations. I prefer the first one with all that extra water and the sense of distance that emphasizes the size of that structure. If it's gone, you lose that subtle reflection that's in it. Of course, I am one who overfills the frame so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Beautiful colors and tone.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

Count me in with folks who want to keep the water. The building seems afar off. As I am an avid swimmer, I judge it would take me a good few minutes to swim out to those pilings.

This has an other-worldly lighting schema ..... almost as if it were a set piece of a science fiction movie.

As before, Bushido, Brochure Mode will never do a photo justice - I'm sure your colors in Download Mode would be even more ethereal.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

bushido wrote:

Yes.

This is the crop that for me strengthens both the pier and the clouds.
For me the distance is still there because the perspective is still the same.
Only my opinion and I seem to be in a definite minority.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

Actually, now that I've opted to keep the water, I'm wondering if there is anything you might do to emphasize the reflections of the pier and the clouds in that wide expanse? (Although I suspect it's already there in your original photo - we just can't see it.)

Bushido Loc: No Where and Every Where

LOL, I think we all end up in a minority at some time in our lives. I have to agree it looks good, yet as Heirloom Tomato pointed out it does change the dynamics of the image. Not that your crop is wrong just different.

lighthouse wrote:

This is the crop that for me strengthens both the pier and the clouds.
For me the distance is still there because the perspective is still the same.
Only my opinion and I seem to be in a definite minority.

Bushido Loc: No Where and Every Where

That is a good point let me see if that can be done Bob.

Bob Yankle wrote:

Actually, now that I've opted to keep the water, I'm wondering if there is anything you might do to emphasize the reflections of the pier and the clouds in that wide expanse? (Although I suspect it's already there in your original photo - we just can't see it.)

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

Bushido wrote:

That is a good point let me see if that can be done Bob.

From what I can see on my monitor, the reflection of the pier is nearly complete (although elongated somewhat), running almost all the way to the bottom of the photo. This was probably never meant to be a "reflection" photo, but Hey!, it adds some neat details to your composition.

Heirloom Tomato Loc: Oregon

lighthouse wrote:

This is the crop that for me strengthens both the pier and the clouds.
For me the distance is still there because the perspective is still the same.
Only my opinion and I seem to be in a definite minority.

Lighthouse, I like many things you do and say, but in this edit the pier looks like a hovercraft, possibly on a river.

Bushido Loc: No Where and Every Where

Bob,I tried to up the saturation to give you a better idea of what the RAW file looked like how ever it came out looking sick. However the RAW file does have a more pronounced reflection than the rendition you see here.

Bob Yankle wrote:

From what I can see on my monitor, the reflection of the pier is nearly complete (although elongated somewhat), running almost all the way to the bottom of the photo. This was probably never meant to be a "reflection" photo, but Hey!, it adds some neat details to your composition.