Is this a well composed picture?

Question

Its a picture of water and rocks in a stream. Is it artistically good?

http://www.geocities.com/fkace63/P1030391.JPG

Answer 1

No.

There's no apparent subject except for the partially wet rock. And how did the rock get water splashed on it?
By the photographer in order to - what?

I'd say it's about 1/2 stop over-exposed. There are details in the shadows, but nothing to be seen there. You should have exposed for (I was going to say your subject - but there isn't one) the rocks rather than the water.
You should have over-ridden the center weighted exposure reading.

The water is killing my eyes! So many reflections - but nothing interesting in them. You should have used a polarizer to cut the glare or waited the sun to move so perhaps they would not have been so bad or found a different angle.

Perhaps a tripod would be good - if at least to make you think and look. But - I don't see any camera appreciable camera shake - which is very good for 1/75th of a second!

However, you didn't have enough depth of field at f2.8 to quite cover your subject.

Both the foreground and the background are out of focus.
That's too bad, because the only thing I see interesting is the staggered line of rocks on the other side of the water.

If you had a subject - then if might have been ok to have had the foreground and background both out of focus.

Generally, only 1 is better, but if you're going to have all of the stuff around - it should be either in focus or way out - not the 1/2 focus (which can appear as camera movement or an unsharp lens). No one else would loo at it long enough to determine why and probably think crappy camera.

In a scenic (which is as close as I can come to classifing it.) or data shot (you recorded this for some scientific purpose in which composition didn't matter) it should all be in focus.

Often a slower shutter speed could add appeal to a flowing water scene - but I don't think so in this case.
With all of the glare, it would have just turning into a blurry glare. In the forground front center, there is some motion blur, but it's out of focus just when it might have started to get interesting...

I zoomed in some more, and it's only really in focus from from the splattered rock to the rock behind and to the left.

The foreground being cut off as it is leaves me wondering - but not caring - if this is the whole stream or not and if you are standing in it.

The whole angle of the water is bad to begin with. Looking down at it's not an exciting view.

And with the glare it's hard to tell the depth.
The glare makes it look very shallow - almost a sheet, but others visual clues (like the height of other splash marks, the leaves on the rocks) make it look maybe 4 inches deep.

And the large rounded stones make it look like it usually does or should have more water in it. If you were documenting a drought or something... It's weird that the water has not washed away the leaves. Making it appear to move faster would make that seem even stranger.

Also, the narrowing to the left, made me think at first it was going away in that direction, but a closer look at the water shows it going from left to right.

I think that the splash on the rock made me believe it was moving in the other direction - if it had been a natural splash.

Anyway, I flipped it over from left to right, and I lke it just slightly better that way. Could just have been because a change of any sort was a relief.

I think that cutting most of the glare with a polarizer would have made the most difference to this shot. The sunlight's diffused through the trees, so I don't know how well it would work. The light would have been coming at all angles.

You should have bumped up your ISO and gotten more depth of field and, maybe cut the shutter speed to about 1/50 too. And a just tad darker

That would have made it a better technical shot and I think a little more pleasing.

Now, you should go back to that spot and look around and try to get an interesting photo.

Answer 2

We'll get to the question that you ask in a moment but you have to look at photography in a slightly different way.

The first step is to SEE a potential photograph in your mind. That photograph must have some visual power. Your photograph does not. It is very 'ordinary' and does not make me say "Wow!"
There is no real core subject to attract my attention.
There probably was a far more interesting visual to be had where you were but you did not SEE it.
Once you have the ability to see, the next step is the technical capability. There are some minor faults in this photograph but so many of them that they add up to a failure.
Composition of a photograph should take place at the time of the shot BUT it can be enjoyable to finally crop and compose the final presentation in edit, whether a darkroom (Hey! Wake up film-users!) or on a computer edit programme, of which there are many.
There are a number of conventions regarding composition for best visual effect and your image complies with none of them. It is often beneficial to break those conventions and not only step outside the box but to rip the box to shreds - can provide very exciting visuals when the rules are broken. As a starter, though, you should research:
1: Rule of Thirds
2: Golden Zone
3: The Magic of Three.

If you want to learn, and mean seriously learn, the basics, see my e-mail address and I will help you.

Answer 3

Artistically, I don't see much in the way of content. I don't get an emotional response from it.

Technically I think you'd get a lot from researching the rule of thirds, which deals primarily with image composition. If you follow the rule of thirds does THAT make it good art? No.... but it makes the image more visually interesting.

Some technical things. Look in to depth of field. Do you see how your image is blurry in the foreground? That's partially caused because there is just not enough light in your photo. If you slow your shutter speed down, you would get more light, more of a flowing effect of the water (if what you were trying to capture was the movement of the water) and probably give you a better exposure at the same time, but be warned... if you slow the shutter you will definitely need a tripod to keep the camera steady.

Great to see you out there and trying though. If you've got the passion for it, you'll get there for sure!
Good luck.

Answer 4

It's ok. It would be more interesting if it had a central focus, and maybe if it was taken more from an angle rather than above. You might adjust your shutter speed to show more of the movement of the water. You are so close to it that we don't get the full effect of how big it is or the elevations. It mainly just needs something else in it, like more of the land or the sky or something. It is hard to look at due to it's size, also.

Answer 5

It looks more like "wallpaper" than an artistic photograph. It's well exposed and all that, but my eye is not drawn to anything. More than that, it is bounced from one spot to another and then another. I'd rather have more of a natural point of view, as John S and others say, instead of looking down on the water in a way I'd never look at water naturally. I'd even rather see it almost from water-level than from straight overhead, if you want to go for something out of the ordinary. This is just my opinion and there might be a thousand people who disagree with me, but that's how it is with artistic interpretation.

Answer 6

It's not bad, but I think that it needs to be a little more zoomed out, and maybe be looking down or up the stream, instead of acrossed. Nothing wrong with it, but it is lacking a little something. Hope this constructive criticism helps you out.

Answer 7

For the most part its a great picture, however, i feel like that rock is the center of attention and shouldn't be as close to the center of the plain as it it.

Answer 8

I'm no expert, but I'd like to see more of an angle from a little farther away, maybe showing where the stream comes from.

Answer 9

I like it! I think it's very nice! ^_^ So, yes, I'd say it's artistically good. Most pictures like that that you see "professionally" have been phoposhopped, and your pic looks a lot like what they have to work with before the put it in the computer.

Answer 10

not to be mean, but no. The color is VERY flat and it looks like you have quite abit of camera shake. Try a tripod next time! Also the angel is a bit off for me.