DSLRUsers.com

apparently up to 7 images? i prolly have enough to get to 7 but that would just be doing it for the sake of it

Interesting composition of different photographs.
I quite like it.

Interesting, he said, whilst quizzically viewing the images as a whole.

I understand the concept but there is just one, IMO, thing that destroys the view and that is the headland in the background.

Through 4 of the pics it has a continuous sweep and appears to be one object which when viewed with the foreground does not “compute”.

What I am trying to say is that in the top half of the X there is conformity and the bottom half chaos.

Great idea but does not work for me

Different and well done, in my opinion

zafra52 wrote:Interesting composition of different photographs.
I quite like it.

CraigVTR wrote:Different and well done, in my opinion

sirhc55 wrote:Interesting, he said, whilst quizzically viewing the images as a whole.

I understand the concept but there is just one, IMO, thing that destroys the view and that is the headland in the background.

Through 4 of the pics it has a continuous sweep and appears to be one object which when viewed with the foreground does not “compute”.

What I am trying to say is that in the top half of the X there is conformity and the bottom half chaos.

Great idea but does not work for me

thanks for sharing your thoughts chris, i appreciate the frank and honest view.

Whilst not conceived when actually taking the pictures, my main aim was to present the headland as one would normally see it, but with the plethora of other compositions possible below, the first 4 all have common ground in them albeit from a different angle, the last is a bit of a orphan and in hindsight could be mirrored to work better here or left off altogether.

sirhc55 wrote:top half of the X there is conformity and the bottom half chaos.

you have said it better than I could

Just for kicks and giggles I did this again the other day, same location different possies.

better? worse? carefactor zero?

Its certainly interesting to look at - the seams between the images appear to match very well across some areas but totally don't in others and I find myself scanning across the whole image looking for the consistencies and inconsistencies like a jigsaw puzzle. e.g. the main rock between #1 and #2 seem to mostly match (but not the bottom rock of course), likewise between #3 and #4 the headland and the bottom rock sort of does but totally doesn't in the middle.

As a whole I don't think it works for me - maybe because the left three are so similar - perhaps if they were all totally different like the last two so you weren't looking to "join" the jigsaw up but just enjoying the completely different slices individually and then as a whole? BTW it's a pentaptych

I think there is too much in this composition to work
effectively, as a unit. The different pictures work
individually, but not as a whole. It doesn't mean
that they cannot be presented as an arrangement
of different and well crafted photographs.

I like the concept of the way you are led into the sunset, but the tone change of the third photo seems to unbalance it, nice photos!

Such individually strong images are hard to put together.
I think the 3 on the right work well together, because of the different tones.
I just enjoy the foregrounds of each.

Have you looked at slicing them horizontally, or diagonally? Like:

Now I look at this again, perhaps not...

Daniel, I don't know why I attack you work...

Gerry
They work for me. The unifying element is the headland...and then the horizons of the ocean...with a nice sunset to wrap it all up. You nailed it beautifully and I can picture these images hanging in an exhibition and getting plastered with red dots.

I don't think the second one works nearly as well as the first. The components of the second image don't fit so well together in terms of colour and I find my eye keeps getting snagged in little compositional whirlpools so I have to dive in and rescue it. And then I lose perspective altogether.

The first one, I think the last image is the problem. Not because there's no headland, because the foreground rocks are the other way around and the line of the surf drops too far so that it doesn't match the others. Flipping it would help or maybe you have a better one to put there.

Gerry, you never cease to amaze me man. Really.

Gerry, at first, Chris' (Sirhc) comments rang true for me, but looking back at the first set a few times, I felt the headlands and their progression throughout provided an anchor point from which the variability of the foreground was very nicely juxtaposed. I think it is pretty close to being complete, in my mind. Where I think it is incomplete is in the tonal differences. Would you be able to repost a mono version of this to see if removal of the differing colours makes a difference?

With reference to tych#1, I would like to see slice 2 or slice 3 removed because they are very similar.

Whilst I like the slices in tych#2, I don't like the whole, and I think that , as Rodney says, the tonal difference is the reason.

Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated, I will reply in detail later.

Rooz wrote:Gerry, you never cease to amaze me man. Really.

yeah my mum says that too.. not for the right reasons also...

Remorhaz wrote:As a whole I don't think it works for me - maybe because the left three are so similar - perhaps if they were all totally different like the last two so you weren't looking to "join" the jigsaw up but just enjoying the completely different slices individually and then as a whole? BTW it's a pentaptych

thanks Rodney, I guess the fact that there is some connection between them does create confusion and as you mentioned maybe using unrelated slices may work better. However, in this case there are two factors that join it all up, the headland is the obvious one, this is what the headland looks like in real life but the other not so obvious aspect (and quite possibly impossible for a person not seeing it in real life) is the fact that it is all the same little gulley, this is what appeals to me, to be able to bring together several images taken essentially from different POVs and present them in a linked manner.

zafra52 wrote:I think there is too much in this composition to work
effectively, as a unit. The different pictures work
individually, but not as a whole. It doesn't mean
that they cannot be presented as an arrangement
of different and well crafted photographs.

cheers Zafra, just trying to mix up teh old seascape stuff..

lightning wrote:I like the concept of the way you are led into the sunset, but the tone change of the third photo seems to unbalance it, nice photos!

ahh yes I see your point there, the sky is a bit lighter here which does jar the flow somewhat. Cheers mate.

DanielA wrote:Such individually strong images are hard to put together.
I think the 3 on the right work well together, because of the different tones.
I just enjoy the foregrounds of each.
Have you looked at slicing them horizontally, or diagonally? Like:
Now I look at this again, perhaps not...

Daniel, I don't know why I attack you work...

Cheers Daniel, thanks for having a crack, it actually looks alright I reckon, reminds me a bit of the fantasy images of worlds beneath ours, layered like..
ya can have edit of my images any day

Matt. K wrote:Gerry
They work for me. The unifying element is the headland...and then the horizons of the ocean...with a nice sunset to wrap it all up. You nailed it beautifully and I can picture these images hanging in an exhibition and getting plastered with red dots.

cheers Matt, I assume the red dots are for 'caution don't buy this'

Reschsmooth wrote:Gerry, at first, Chris' (Sirhc) comments rang true for me, but looking back at the first set a few times, I felt the headlands and their progression throughout provided an anchor point from which the variability of the foreground was very nicely juxtaposed. I think it is pretty close to being complete, in my mind. Where I think it is incomplete is in the tonal differences. Would you be able to repost a mono version of this to see if removal of the differing colours makes a difference?

I can now see the tonal differences and how they affect the flow, i will have to revisit that image for sure.

here is a straight mono conversion from the final colour one, I don't normally do that since I find once a image has been processed for colour doing a final BW is not where near effective as doing it as the first edit step then doing subsequent edits as a BW image, is that just me?

Thanks for teh feedback Patrick

the foto fanatic wrote:With reference to tych#1, I would like to see slice 2 or slice 3 removed because they are very similar.

Whilst I like the slices in tych#2, I don't like the whole, and I think that , as Rodney says, the tonal difference is the reason.

Cheers Trevor, appreciated.

just comparison here is the single image from the end - yawn boring imo

I think the B&W works better because there is more
uniformity. It looks a bit dark on my screen, but as
a composition I like it. However, the last one reigns
supreme in colour depth of field and composition,
perhaps a bit too much of sky but I am being picky.

Gerry, I think the B&W works better than the colour as it highlights the textures, patterns and anchor points better.

Thanks Patrick and Zafra, I am warming to the idea of a BW version, however I will have to reprocess individual images since I am not terribly happy with the conversion (BW) The BW version does remove that issue of tonal change.