Cuckmere Haven, Sussex

Excellente *******

D

Sorry that you don't like it. Perhaps you prefer this one, taken in 1966:


I take this view regularly: every 56 years, come rain or shine.

Both are quite horrendous. H*

I notice you've discarded Roy's cropping suggestion, but he does talk a lot of sense.
A square frame is not well suited to a wide landscape.

To accentuate the vastness, you need a big sky with a low horizon
OR a big landscape with a moderately high horizon, but NOT BOTH.

1. Sometimes, but not always. Opinion does form part of judgement, and I would be getting above myself if I were to assume that mine is paramount, and so would he.

2. Vastness is not the essence of this landscape. It is, rather, the interesting and unusual meanderings of the river. The focal point, to which the eye is led (this being of overriding importance, of course) is where it enters the sea, and with the square format it sits almost perfectly on a third.

2. That is precisely why Roy suggested cropping a large amount off the top, to make the entry to the sea a focal point, which it isn't here.

The meandering river is interesting and the sky is immense. Not sure why there can't be dual focus here.

Only those obsessed with rules demand obedience to some rule that a picture must have a single focus only, to which the eye must be led.

The Sussex Downs and coast are known for their 'big' skies. It's a local meteorological phenomenon, and this is a good example of a 'Sussex sky'.

The need for a single focus is not a rule, but the natural inclination of the eye, which you do not seem to understand. I don't use any photography rules, as you well know. You are the one that keeps quoting them to me.

Do you remember that wonderful conversation we had with Kitty?
www.ipernity.com/doc/isisbridge/51232308

I was referring to those who are obsessed with rules, and you are not one of them, as I perfectly well understand. But as I keep saying, "rules" and "the natural inclination of the eye" are two sides of the same coin.

I don't (but should, which is worrying; perhaps too much has happened during the last 8 years) remember that conversation with Kitty, but it's an interesting one, and there's something in what she says. Hear, hear, Kitty Kitty...

Andy (who seems to have a natural eye) has it perfectly in this recent shot of land and sky.
<a href=

Andy who?

I agree. It's a lovely shot of <a href=.

I've noticed that when I copy a link from the 'in activity' section, it changes to a different picture as the activity is updated. Hence, the link I posted as an example of Andy's work is now showing up as something else.

The sky is the primary attraction for me, with reflection of it in the meanders the counterpoint. The first is a light wispy expanse - the latter a crisp delineated, almost geometric pattern. It is the contrast that makes the image work for me. The river zigzags right into the waves at its mouth. Unless you are high above it it never offers a focal point.

Thanks.

This is a very pleasing photograph of both the river meanders and the clouds. I found it possible to look at both

Thanks. So did I.

Colin is another one with a good natural eye.

Certainly, and he appreciates a good picture when he sees one.

So do I, but I don't see one here. The elements are certainly there, but (as usual) it's the overall composition that spoils it for me.

So which of you is right?

There is no right or wrong when it comes to personal preferences.
I always give an honest opinion, and this is a massive fail as far as I'm concerned.
Though it could have been quite nice if you'd followed Roy's advice. (sounds like a poem)

So the changes made (i.e. the lowered horizon) after Roy rubbished the original were to no avail?

I myself am perfectly satisfied with it, the main subject being the Sussex sky, albeit it a Thames Estuary one.

What changes? Unless you show a before and after, it's sometimes difficult to remember.

Are you saying this was not actual sky you saw here?
Maybe that's why it doesn't work too well.

The original was rubbished because the horizon in it was near the centre, and I was told on high authority that there's a rule that you need a big sky with a low horizon OR a big landscape with a moderately high horizon, but NOT BOTH.

Mutatis mutandis it's still being rubbished.

That was a general observation and not a "rule". You have a very striking land feature, so you don't need loads of relatively mundane sky detracting from it. But you haven't answered my question as to whether you have swapped skies.

It's a genuine Sussex sky, but happened to be in Kent at the time.

As a general observation, it might have a colonel of truth. So henceforth regard all my "rules" as "general observations".

So does that mean that this sky does not belong to this photo?

It does and it doesn't, depending on where you're looking.

I take that to be a 'yes' then. You have a mismatched sky and landscape.

Rubbish. The lower part is a blend of Shepperton and the real sky, and the Shepperton (upper) part was taken in the Thames Estuary, likewise over open water, and on that same day this scene, sky included, would have looked very similar to this.