Click here to view at full resolution.
Uploaded: 06/04/12 2:28 PM GMT
Views: 913
Dlds: 30
Status: active

I love to go to the beach and look out into the vast nothingness - wondering how far it is to the other side of infinity.


Post a Comment  -  Subscribe to this discussion
06/08/12 2:39 AM GMT
Hello, Megan...

I have a few comments and some constructive criticism. First of all I think your image might benefit from a longer depth of field. There's only a small area of the beach that's in complete focus. Secondly, most landscapes can be improved by changing the horizon so that it doesn't split the shot down the middle. I would say that if the sky was full of very dramatic rain clouds, for example, I might have more clouds and less beach. With your posting the sky looks just like it does here in the summer. A clear blue California summer sky without a single cloud provides little interest, and half of your shot is basically varying shades of blue.

In a landscape it's a good idea to have a focal point to draw your attention like a tree or a boulder. If the land portion of the landscape was more interesting, I'd shift the horizon to show less sky and more land. In your image there's a few small rocks and shells.

It's hard to tell because of the low angle that you chose, but there seems to be a creek or the remnants of high tide and another section of beach between you and the main body of water. So the idea of "infinity" is being disrupted. If you truly want to depict infinity in your shot, I'd make the hike up to the main beach and get passed the sand bar because that sand bar is between you and "the vast nothingness".

This is a quickee attempt to show you a variation of your posting. I quickly and poorly dropped in a sky with a few cirrus clouds and cropped out half of the sky. I did my best to sharpen the shot, added a little contrast and a click of color.

Let me know what you think?


P.S. Most of my shots looked just like this when I started out. There are some wonderful photographers here on Caedes that helped me. I'm sure that there are plenty that would help you with some constructive and informative criticism if you just ask.
0∈ [?]
I may be schizophrenic, but at least I have each other.
06/08/12 10:21 PM GMT
I concur with the comment about the position of the horizon. Personally I like the use of the narrow depth of field, although you need something in the foreground to be the subject, a rock or shell, to keep the focus of attention. Moving closer to the existing rock would have helped here. The background being out of focus is then more acceptable.

If you are clever you could try a hyper focal shot, using a high f number to maximised the dog and feet everything in shot. This can be very effective.

The bland blue sky is difficult. lowering the horizon would leave it as a large flat blue area. Raising the horizon will increase the rather dull browns. difficult call.
1∈ [?]
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." Ansel Adams - Gallery - follow me on Twitter.
06/09/12 3:08 PM GMT
All good advice. Have a subject in mind with a narrow DOF. If you have lots of sky, have something in it.
0∈ [?]

Leave a comment (registration required):