For one reason and anothers (and likely a bunch of lame excuses), has been a long time since have been out taking shots and posting here at the forum.

But was out walking yesterday, in a Derbyshire Dale (Wolfescote if anyone is curious)...

So have this shot which has a central horizon (which I understand is generally a poor composition).
Can't seem to judge a beneficial crop (seems I like it as it is), which is where the assistance of you folk is sought.
Kit Lens


Any steers, guidance and C+C appreciated as before. Look forward to working with you guys again.

[Peter Zack]

Sometimes you just have to leave well enough alone. The big issue with a central horizon, especially if it's straight, is that it almost looks like two different photos together. Above and below the horizon. In this case, I wouldn't want to loose any of the dark cloud or the foreground. The dark cloud gives the illusion that the photo is divided in 3 and not 2.

So IMO leave it as is.

[kevinschoenmakers]

I'm a big fan of more panoramic aspect ratios, and this picture seems to be a perfect candidate.



This probably looks better on the big version of the picture, as panoramics always look bigger at full size.

I should add though, there's nothing much wrong with the original picture. But this would by my suggestion for an alternative crop.

I'm a big fan of more panoramic aspect ratios, and this picture seems to be a perfect candidate.


This probably looks better on the big version of the picture, as panoramics always look bigger at full size.

I should add though, there's nothing much wrong with the original picture. But this would by my suggestion for an alternative crop.

You destroy the lines in the image with this crop Kevin.

[rhermans]

I don't see how any crop could better this image.
So leave it, and don't bother about rules you might be breaking, they are only guidelines.

[PFH]

..the so-called "rules" of photographic composition are ..invalid, irrelevant, and immaterial..There are no rules of composition in photography, only good photographs.
Ansel Adams..

..the so-called "rules" of photographic composition are ..invalid, irrelevant, and immaterial..There are no rules of composition in photography, only good photographs.
Ansel Adams..

But he did learn them first before he said that.

[Ash]

That's important.
Effectively breaking composition rules requires an appreciation of them in the first instance, and a relative mastery of how the image can be made to work despite going against them.

This one to me is also fine as it is - the dramatic sky should be left in the image, and the landscape is what makes the image, so no crop.

[song_hm]

I think your composition is fine. Notice the horizon gradually slope up to the right, this effectively eliminate the visual effect the rule is trying to avoid - that of an image visually cut in half.

Rather than cropping, I thought it just need the foreground spiced up. Here I brighten the foreground to give it more prominence.

[mithrandir]

If it were my photograph, I would straighten the horizon, apply a small crop, and set white and black points:

[Frank Fletcher]

Like Peter, I quite like the original. No need for a crop!

Since people are playing - here is another (more rainy/overcast) interpretation:

[bluespearbone]

Thanks to all for the advice, which have tried to follow as best able.
This is the result

[mithrandir]

Nice final results, John.

[Rense]

I second that! Great picture, the final even better than the first!

[LensScribe]

I agree, no need for a crop. Love the colours in the final result.