Stills

I don't share John's appreciation of this image. I can see that all the elements of a picture are present, but they aren't coming together for me. There's something too centered about the composition, and it all looks a bit too soft (not enough DOF?).
 

Matt: old lens. Wrong lens for the job. Probably. I'm going to go back with a modern lens and reshoot to see what difference that makes. If I can get a day with the right light (virtually shadowless as you can see) they will make an interesting pair to compare.
 

It's interesting that you say "wrong lens for the job." One of my first thoughts on seeing this was that this imaged needed a larger format. There's something in those rocks, but it just isn't coming out.
 

Matt: ignoring for a moment whether there is potential here or not, my analysis was -

Needed: tripod, modern high contrast lens, posh digital, or medium format slow film

Got: handheld, old low contrast lens, 35mm fast film.

You can see that the round stones are out of focus. All the square stones are in (acceptable) focus, but nonetheless nothing is quite crisp. I've added a lot of contrast already (in PS) to try and bring out some snap.

The lens is a wonderful lens (pre ASPH Summicron 35mm). This is the first time I've used it for this sort of subject matter and it didn't really turn in the goods. It draws in an impressionistic way. It has taken my favourite photo of the year so far, but.....for fine crinkly detail and texture, no.

As to the composition, JohnE has seen, and put perfectly, what I was trying to get at.

Now, if I haven't put everybody off with all this lens stuff, I'll be interested in what others have to say.
 

I also get a sharpness issue here but, with my spanking new glasses it's the soft foreground lichen that bothers me most. What I do like about this image is the way it lets me confuse myself regarding the way it was made. A straight down shot or a shot of a wall. There's depth in it, the feeling of which would be enhanced by using a 21st century or even mid 20th century lens. Joke. Don't hit me.
 

The apparant balancing act by the circular on the angled is particularly enjoyable. If you plan to go back I would suggest to try and make this effect come across even stronger - more from the top than the bottom?
 

JohnJo: the lens was made in 1990! Although in design terms it was from a previous generation. The last of its kind etc. The lens that replaced it is often described as 'clinical'. That is it draws some very sharp edges which are as unsuited to some subjects as this older one was to this. All a learning experience...

Akikana: I went back this morning, but by the time I found the rock (hmm, it is smaller than I remembered), the nice soft white cloud light had turned to rain. Never mind. Another day. Moving the frame up a little would have the advantage of diminishing the large white blob (lichen) at the bottom. Now that I can reliably find the rock I will be back.
 

The juxtaposition of angular with soft and round doesn't come across with much strength. I think it is because the image is dominated by the central 'lump' of angular rock and the proportion of the image taken by the soft round is too small.