Challenging - but I like it

Moving Pictures

@& to avoid hot pixels.

Thoughts? Not a landscape guy, me .... (Oh, and while reducing altitude to bring the waves closer to the skyline might have produced a better pic, it might have won me a Darwin Award: the Bay of Fundy was in a nasty mood yesterday.)

Crokey

Amazing light show. I can't blame you for not getting any closer to those waves, you probably would have ended up floating somewhere in the mid-Atlantic! I'm usually not one for adhering to so called rules, but the one about placing a horizon half-way up(or down!) a photo generally rings true. It tends to divide the picture into two different images. I think I would sacrifice some of the sky or maybe crop up to the bottom of the rocks, ideally you should have risked live,limb and lens and clambered down to get the rocks higher up in the frame

Moving Pictures

This didn't grab me as much, fwiw.

NorthernFocus

It really was a lovely sky. Same comment regarding splitting the frame with the horizon (on both images). Don't know if you were working with a tripod but if so it would have been interesting to tey a long shutter.

Crokey

I think you were in a real difficult conundrum when framing this shot with regards to horizon placement. Because those two portions of the image, the sky and the foreground, are so different in tonal values and color and that the line delineating the two is necessarily so harsh(by that I mean, unlike a landscape with trees or mountains that would break it or soften the transition), I think you were going to end up with two distinct regions anyway irregardless of horizon placement. Challenging was the right choice for the title! Whenever I see photos with such a strong horizon separating sky and land, not just photos of the sea and sky, but photos from places like Salt Lake(my American geography is pretty woeful!) often the most successful ones have really eccentric placements for the horizon, either very high up emphasizing the foreground or very low down showing much more of the sky. I think you would have had to decide which was more important to telling the story, the crashing waves or the amazing sky. The only other way I've seen this type of scene handled well is with wide panos, which are less sensitive to the placement of the horizon, and actually work better usually with a horizon closer(but still not on) the center. Well, that's my penny's worth anyway:D

Snowgirl

You were brave (or nuts!) to be out in the cold yesterday morning or down close to those unpredictable Bay of Fundy waves. I love the light rays in the sky and I think, if it were me, I'd just crop some of those heavy gray clouds out from the top - consequently moving the horizon closer to the top - but maintain the light rays for drama and contrast to the breaking waves and harsh rocks. My penny's worth

Moving Pictures

Snowgirl wrote: »

You were brave (or nuts!) to be out in the cold yesterday morning or down close to those unpredictable Bay of Fundy waves. I love the light rays in the sky and I think, if it were me, I'd just crop some of those heavy gray clouds out from the top - consequently moving the horizon closer to the top - but maintain the light rays for drama and contrast to the breaking waves and harsh rocks. My penny's worth

Snowgirl: This was on Grand Manan, on the southern tip ... and I was about two, maybe three metres away from where 3-metre waves were smashing against the rocks. They weren't gonna get bigger, but the wind was kinda biting. BrrrR. Then again, I stood outside for an hour and a half yesterday capturing pics of a house fire for work, so I figure a few minutes of chill for *me* can't hurt.

I hear what you're saying about the cropping ... As is so often the case, the eye saw something that the camera (or camera operator) struggled to capture.