Coastguard Cottage, Sussex

Nice cliffs, but the effect is lost beneath the distracting clouds.

Then complain to the Met Office. Everything here is 'as was'.

Nothing to complain to them about. The clouds are lovely. It's just that they're distracting from the main focus of the picture, which must surely be the white cliffs. If you were to crop as Roy suggested, you would give the cliffs more emphasis, as well as giving some relevance to the cottage as the vantage point.

If I'd composed it in that way, he'd have wanted more space around the scene and more lead-in. I actually think it's fine as it is, with the bay (left) included and the clouds whole. To my eye this is pretty much how Constable composed his paintings.

Why do you need the clouds whole? Is it picture of the clouds? Or is it a picture of a coastguard cottage looking out over the bay? The whole is confusing, with the eye not knowing which way to go.

1. For the reason that in a bar of Cadbury's Whole Nut the nuts need to be whole.
2. The title may be misleading you, because the coastguard cottage isn't actually the subject; it's merely a part of the scene, as are the clouds.
3. The same could be said of any Constable. The eye is free to explore and go where it pleases, and has no need to be directed.

Far from being the subject, the cottage is almost redundant in your scene. It should be leading us across the water as it keeps a watchful eye on the treacherous coast, but here it looks more like a met observation post.

The eye is free to go where it pleases in any picture, but the fact is that it does get directed in certain ways, whether it needs to be or not.

I think you're getting a little above yourself in likening this to a Constable.

The more usual view taken from here is this:
which you may prefer.

I don't compare any photograph to a Constable, because they're different media. But the same rules of composition apply to both, and similar compositions to his can be achieved without needing a great artist's skill.

Here we go with "rules" again! Let's forget about the rules and listen to the photographer's eye, if such be possible.

I'm not keen on the second photo, because you have the cliff directly above the houses, with the chimneys lost in the beach, and there's no sense of the houses doing any watching over the scene. The top photo is infinitely better in that respect, and my only criticism of that one is that you have too much sky distracting from the main subject.

With this lower one, I also dislike the stark triangle made by the strong sun on the gable end.

I think the clouds add to the feeling of the immenseness of the scene.

Thanks. I agree.

Superbe ********

Merci.

I love the clouds over this iconic view. The shaft of light on the white cliffs is just lovely.

Thanks. It might have been a blessing in disguise that a big dark cloud (which had no intention of moving) came over and threw the foreground into deep shade.

Stunning shot! Stay well!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

Thanks.

And here we go again about the photographer's eye, and what pleases it, these "rules" being no more and no less than an established and agreed formulation of precisely that.

As for the houses watching over the scene, or looking as if they are, it's an interesting angle, but isn't the intention here or in the mind of most viewers, who will just see them as an element in that scene.

Says he, citing the rules again.

Who is citing rules? It's just that the suggested crop doesn't square with what Kitty warmly commends in your work, her saying that you allow your scenery the freedom to BREATH and to invite us in - her version of a perfect shot.

There's ample room to breathe in this shot. But, as with the Cuckmere shot, I think you're trying to do two things at the same time.

So there's a rule, is there, that a picture must do only one thing?

I have no idea. I don't follow any rules of photography.

In which case, then yes, I am trying to do two (or more) things at the same time.

So you are. I'm surprised, though, that your dexterity does not extend to correcting the spelling on which you capitalise.

Kitty's spelling, that was. It isn't polite to correct other people.

Then I wouldn't be so rude as to say that it ought to be in inverted commas.
Grammatical rules are okay, as long as one is not too much of a stickler.

A really beautiful image that catches the eye even in thumbnail. Lovely light and a terrific sky

Have a good week

Thanks.

Beautiful light and a terrific sky in a well composed and interesting image!

Belle lumière bien rendue.

Thanks.

In which case, then yes, I am trying to do two (or more) things at the same time.

A wonderful viewpoint and place

Thanks. It's a well-known one, but mercifully too far from the nearest car park to be overrun completely.

I am always pleased to see new versions of this view. I live couple of miles west of the Cuckmere and the standard view is found in advertising and publicity ad nauseam. Of course I have taken my fair share of photographs of Cuckmere Haven from many viewpoints, but other photographers' images that offer something different are good to see.

I've also taken the standard view (see above) which as you say must be the most cliched in the UK.

When taking this shot instead last Saturday, I was annoyed by the sun going in (to stay in for the next hour) seconds before I arrived, and had modest expectations of it, but with RAW this can sometimes turn out for the best. Here, the dark foreground has come out (old) oil painting-like and emphasizes the distant cliff cliffs on which the sun was shining.

I wonder how many times this view has been misused to illustrate the white cliffs of Dover. It is a bit odd when the ITV Meridian (for the South of England) weather forecast is topped and tailed by its sponsors, Vaillant Heating, who use the view as their backdrop, when the South region finishes over ten miles west, at Brighton.

Howard

The picture is perfect and the comments from a 102 year old ridiculous. I like pictures "as seen" imperfections and all that makes a proper picture not a manufactured one.

Agreed. But scenes like this that need no retouching are lamentably rare. I see the things that spoil most scenes today - aerials, cars etc. - not as imperfections but offensive eyesores and will never allow them to appear in my pictures.

Thanks for posting your wonderful picture to

www.ipernity.com/group/buildings

There you go, Howard: our friend here likes pictures "as seen" and not manufactured.
So that puts paid to most of yours, this being one of the rare few!

And also puts paid to the pictures of Constable, Gainsborough, Turner, Canaletto and every painter you can think of, none of whom painted the exact literal truth of what they saw.

I am (take it or leave it) a pictorial, not a documentary photographer.