I love Bill Maher but I can see why some wouldn't. I think he's funny but then he and I agree on a number of issues not the least of which is religion.

No problem Nightski, I wasn't sure how appropriate it was to post the second photo. I agree it's a better photo, but I'm less interested in comments I would get from that.

Here is one from closer in for comparison.

I recently heard an alarming statistic. Did you know that four out of three Americans have trouble with fractions?

Thank you all for your comments. Quite honestly I agree with you. I have a similar shot from closer in that I like better but I wanted to get other opinions about the composition in general. I was going for large swaths of negative space but I'm afraid in this case my negative space holds to much interest (or clutter) and distracts the viewer from the main subject which isn't prominent enough. I'll try a few crops just for fun :). Thanks again for your comments, as always they are helpful.

Yesterday the temperature got to about 45 degrees (7C). So I decided to get off the sofa and make the short trip to Grand Haven (eastern shore of Lake Michigan) from my home in Grand Rapids. For those who don't know, the Great Lakes have had about as much ice cover this year as they've ever had with between 96% and 98% coverage. I took this photo from about 300 yards south and west of the lighthouse from a spot where only boats would normally be. I'm standing on an eight foot tall ice ridge that was created much like mountains are created by shifting tectonic plates. It's not the best photo I've ever taken but is without a doubt the shot I put the most physical effort into. Walking those ice ridges was a major job.

When I look at the photo I see a lot of negative space though not without interest. Most of the action is on the upper 1/3rd horizontal. Give it to me strait people.

(Download)

I'm just wondering if you got your eye back :). I do think you tried to get too much in. For me there is no definitive subject.

I know I'll get a lot of flack for this but I think we need to take away tax credits for families. Why are we giving people preferential treatment for having kids? It's not like we need to populate the earth.

Wow! That's the first negative comment about image quality that I've ever heard with regards to Canon telephoto prime lenses. I don't mean to discount your experience Mike but the big Sigma zooms, as nice as they are, can't hold a candle to the Canon Primes.

I stand corrected.

Sell the 17-70 - check
Trade wife - check
buy 16-35 - check

Yep, OddJobber and I are in complete agreement here. :)

I wish I could tell you from experience how nice that lens is but alas, I don't own any. I will tell you what an old photographer friend of mine told me in his usual understated way, "If it says Zeiss on the ring, it's going to be pretty good." Keep in mind all Zeiss lenses are manual focus.

Holy Crap! I just checked B&H. $500 for the T3i kit.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist.jsp&sku=753762&is=REG&Q=add&q=1&A=cart

I loved my T3i, my daughter uses it now. I'll tell you the same thing I tell anyone looking at the T3i. If you can spend a couple of hundred more buy the body only and add the Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250 lens. Either of those lenses will serve you better than the 18-55 that comes with the camera.

A 70-200 is a nice lens and covers a lot of focal length at the telephoto end. I love mine but a lot will depend on the type of photography you do. I use mine for portraiture most of the time.