RedHook Pier

Wondering what you think of this one . . .
thanks

I think I have seen far better from you Gary.
This just seems like a picture you randomly made and thought it might be better if you added a little sense of color.
There is nothing here to compells me to view it.
Glad ato see you are posting again.
Brian

I quite enjoy the contrast.

I like the feeling of the rickety pier compared to the elegant bridge in the background. Not sure you need all the FG water. I probably would have overlooked the fisherman for some time without the bit of color.

Were they bitin'?

gahspidy - Sorry but this one just doesnt do it for me. Too much negative space and not a strong enuf subject. The pier is too flat wrt to the bridge and background/horizon. Just not a whole lot here..

Sorry to be so negative. -GB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GB1

gahspidy - Sorry but this one just doesnt do it for me. Too much negative space and not a strong enuf subject. The pier is too flat wrt to the bridge and background/horizon. Just not a whole lot here..

Sorry to be so negative. -GB

---

I think that's what isn't working for me as well.
Well said.
Brian

The contrasting structures was a good idea, but there are too many visual problems...including the overlapping of the rickety bridge with the middle ground and the fact that part of the suspension bridge is also hidden by the middle ground. The sky is also rather bland and perhaps a little washed out. It needs to be cropped. For a semi black and white, there is insufficient tonal variation, particularly in the rickety bridge.

Ronnoco

The horizon/shore line placement conflicts with the rest of the photograph. I do like the trees transecting the span of the bridge. The pier and the fisherman need more separation from the rest of the photo as they appear to either be 'in the way' or something else is.

Perhaps if the bridge were more 'ethereal' and the pier and fisherman were in higher contrast or silhouette? Still that shore line and horizon placement is at issue. Perhaps a different proportion of water to the rest of the image would change the weight of the image and make it flow better (any pun unavoidable and not intended).

A few thoughts that I hope are helpful and not just critical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gahspidy

Wondering what you think of this one . . .
thanks

---

I can understand people comments about several elements overlaping in the area of the horizon line but I couldn't say that it actually distract me much. Each element remain clearly distinguishable from each other which makes it ok for me although it may not be the finest configuration possible.

I'd cut a lot of the water in the foreground to bring the pier closer and turning this picture in a panorama. I actually like the tones and the colors here, they are muted but it creates a good mood as far as I am concerned. The fisherman stand out just well.

Seb

Thanks for the comments. When I first snapped this image a while back I never thought much of it. As most of you pointed out, the pier lining up/overlapping the horizon and the amount of foreground water dissapointed me. But there were apsects of this shot that kept me coming back to it. One of the galleries that I exhibit in is located in RedHook Brooklyn and they used this image for their advertising of their past Spring Show. When they sent me the framed ad that ran in the magazines I noticed that they had cropped it into a sort of panorama as you mentioned would help, and it made a much stronger impact on me.
By the way Seb, this was taken on the day we visited the gallery and walked around RedHook during your visit to N.Y. last year.
I think as you all suggested the cropped foreground and somewhat panorama aspect works better.