WIllard Bay with new lens

[ctcook]

I went out to one of my favorite spots to test out my new 35mm 1.8 and took this shot. While I was compsing the image I was trying to get some of the wood in the foreground to give the image some depth. Now I'm second guessing if it was needed or even if it distracts from the image. What do you think? All critique is welcomed.

EXIF:
Nikon D40
35mm
ISO: 200
f/4
1/100

[windrider86]

I see where you were going with the log in front. My guess is you were using it as a leading line. But, in this case it didnt work.
Try deciding what your main focus is on, the water or the sky and have one or the other more prominent. Having the horizon right in the middle is rather bland but moving it higher or lower (depending on which side is more interesting) will add more impact to your photo

Oh, and CONGRATS on your new lens!

[EOBeav]

Yeah, although it's a valiant effort, this one doesn't work for me. The log really goes to the water, but then there's not much in the water to see. What's more, the log is out of focus by quite a bit, which is distracting. Some better colors in the sky would have helped also.

Thanks for posting, and keep shooting!

[ctcook]

Thank you for your responses. I think this is one example where a foreground object really wasn't necessary. Next time I think I'll leave it out and wait for the sun to go down further to get some color in the clouds.

[SwissJon]

I dont think the log would have detracted if it had been wholly in the picture, and in focus.

I think next time you take one like this you should use a smaller aperture/larger number on your f/stop.. And I wonder if you wouldn't have been better to use a slower speed also, maybe as slow as 1/4 second.. The sea is dramatic in colour, reflecting the low sky, the motion blur would have added to the drama, being frozen in time as it is, you have diminished it's power.

[EOBeav]

Originally Posted by ctcook

I think this is one example where a foreground object really wasn't necessary.

I don't know that I would say it's 'necessary' but it's a great element to have handy, especially when the rest of the shot is water and sky.

[BCampbell]

The log is distracting only because it's out of focus. The rest of the detritus on the beach is even more distracting. There's plenty of stuff in the foreground there already.

More distracting than that is the huge swath of blown out sky. I think the horizon placement is fine, but that sky is just not good. If you really want to get this image, where there are clouds in the foreground and clear sky in the back, you're going to need to get a tripod and merge at least two photos.

[Michael_2010]

The log doesn't work in this case, because the height of the lens makes it an incidental object in the frame. If you had dropped much lower with your camera and adjusted the angle of view, you could have truly made the log a leading line taking the viewer's eyes out toward the horizon. As it is now, it looks as though you almost tripped over it while trying to get your shot.

I also agree with the others about focus. Unless there is a very strong foreground element you want to highlight it is almost always best to have sharp focus from front to back with a seascape, landscape, etc.

[LoveDSLR]

This reminds me of a photo (the 4th one) I saw from this thread.

"http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133533"

[ctcook]

Originally Posted by SwissJon

I think next time you take one like this you should use a smaller aperture/larger number on your f/stop.. And I wonder if you wouldn't have been better to use a slower speed also, maybe as slow as 1/4 second.. The sea is dramatic in colour, reflecting the low sky, the motion blur would have added to the drama, being frozen in time as it is, you have diminished it's power.

Originally Posted by BCampbell

...More distracting than that is the huge swath of blown out sky...

Ya I need to pick up a GND filter and remember to take my tripod with me (dumb mistake).

So, I found another shot with the log in focus, I also tried to correct some of the things mentioned it's not the best, but for future reference is this closer?: