Roker Pier, Sunderland

[DigiDiva]

I would love to hear your critique on this image. It's rare I post here for critique but I have bit the bullet. ....

[Beaux Reflets]

Very nice tones and atmospheric Chris.

I personally feel that there is too much foreground. Rule of thirds is a useful weapon and I would crop off the bottom so the (first stronger) highlight is closer to the bottom third area. -  Or keep size as is, and give, clone something into the fore, again around the bottom third region, perhaps more to the left to help balance the overall composition.

Either way the  viewer's eye will be invited to look again all around the image   

[DigiDiva]

Thanks Beaux

[Oldboy]

I like the foreground except the dark rocks/sand and shadow.I would have moved more left to include the sun's reflection. The pink sky works well with the slow shutter speed. Well spotted. 

[Reinardina]

I'm no good at critique, as I hardly ever see how an image could be improved, unless it is very obvious. And if it is very obvious, you never know, if the photographer did not do it on purpose. In this case however, I agree with Andy; I think the picture would have more impact, if cropped.

And, I'm glad you finally start using the site for more than the competitions! Welcome to CC.

[StephenBatey]

My own thoughts are centred on two points. The first to strike me was the position of the moon (or sun - I'll stick to moon), and the second the empty foreground.

My eye naturally follows the dark line in the waves/shoreline up to the moon's reflection and then "bounces" up to view the moon. This journey is broken at the outset by the dark line not running down to the bottom of the frame; and the upward journey of my eye is interrupted by the spit of rocks that jut in about a third of the way up.

If I'd taken this, I would have included more sky and less foreground, cutting it off such that the rocks occupy the bottom right hand corner. At the top of the frame, I would have included about as much extra sky as needed to more of less put the moon half way between the top of the frame and the top of the lighthouse. The moon then falls on the line joining the top right hand corner of the frame to the top of the lighthouse.

I checked out my ideas by moving the image to the bottom of my screen to effect a crop, and by opening a second window with the photo in and squeezing it down to just have the right amount of sky, and then arranged the windows to make it look joined.

I'm uncertain as to whether the "bump" - whatever it is - on the pier and near the left hand edge shouldn't be right on the edge. The pier needs it to act as a visual stop to the eye running out, but I think it would be improved by reducing the continuation of the pier beyond it to a minimum.

The area of sea just under the lighthouse/pier and extending to the left edge looks a little bare and featureless. I checked with the eyedropper in Photoshop and it's not (apparently) burned out, but it does distract. I tested my hypothesis of it being distracting by crudely cloning in some see from lower down, and found the result more satisfying. Interestingly (to me) it makes the image uncropped appear much stronger and much less in need of any cropping or extra sky.

And finally, I'd be tempted to darken the reflections that would fall in the bottom right corner after my suggested crop as being just a little too distracting as they are.

But if I'd taken it, it would be my picture, and I assume that we don't see things the same way.

[DigiDiva]

Thanks Reinardina

[ABERS]

Can't  see a lot wrong with the image , however I agree the with  suggestions that a crop would enhance it.

I see it as a square image with the bottom part of the picture taken off to make it so. This would concentrate the eyes on all the important elements within the picture, ie the pier, lighthouse  and the moon and it's reflection.

That's  my tuppencewoth.

[DigiDiva]

Thanks old boy Stephen and Abers. I will go play and post the results. I'm pleased I asked especially as you all agree.

[StephenBatey]

I'm pleased I asked especially as you all agree.

On reflection, I will add a slightly dissenting voice. The crops as suggested (and we did all agree on that in principle at least) do seem to be the best way forward as it stands. But in the cold light of day, and revisiting my version with the cloned-in sea which retains the original otherwise intact, I prefer it to a cropped image. The long, thin shape of the image echoes the lighthouse, and leads the eye upwards to the heavens; the lighthouse could then be viewed as a gnomen (pointer on a sundial, or more generally a pointer).

Regardless of interpretation you could try this; or, if you wish, I'll post my rough correction which is still open (unsaved) in Photoshop.

[DigiDiva]

OK, here's the cloned version

[DigiDiva]

And heres the square crop

[DigiDiva]

I think the cloned version looks odd because the land suddenly ends....do you guys think it looks a bit un-natural? Maybe I need to clone it differently

The square crop gives more impact to the main subject, which I really love (hence me putting it up for critique) but I think it takes away a bit of the loneliness, solitude and moodiness

Im really not sure....

Further comments would be appreciated

As a side comment, I have sold a copy of the original, got the order yesterday. Its for someones lovely new build town house as a show piece in their dinning room or bedroom (they can't decide). The house won't be done until December though. I might show them the clones and cropped versions to see what they think with their non-photography trained eyes!

[StephenBatey]

My cloned version looks different to yours:

[DigiDiva]

My eyes are getting on a bit but i can't see a difference between my original and your cloned.....its like a 'spot the difference' puzzle lol. Can you point it out?