I think they are both cool shots, although I prefer the first for creativity. I think the second might have been taken with a telephoto, looks a bit flatter.

>>2815116
>Would the second one widely be considered a bad photo?

No.

>>2815116
The first shot looks more like a standard focal length, something like a 35mm or 50mm. Not sure about the ND filter as it's not easy to tell really, this result can definitely be produced without one. As for the exposure length, it's probably 10+ seconds.

The second image looks like it was shot with a tele, just after midday or something.

>Would the second one widely be considered a bad photo?
Definitely not, why would you think that anon? Exposure is spot on and the composition is nice, it would make for a great postcard.

>>2815204
I thought ND filter because of the foggy water, can that be achieved in other ways?

The water and the sand in the second one are the only things I don't mind. imo the cliff's ugly and too close, the sun on the big rocks is too bright, and the sky is boring.
I imagined you guys wouldn't like the harsh lighting or the boring sky.

>>2815224
Foggy water is caused by long exposure, not by an ND filter. It's possible that an ND was required to get a long exposure, but it's also possible that it was done without an ND filter if the lighting was dim enough to allow for a long exposure without a filter.

Given the fact that it looks like the sun was already up when the photo was taken, then yes it was probably bright enough that an ND was required to get the shutter speed slow enough to get the foggy looking water.

The shot on the right has the best composition, by far. Just less dreamy atmospheric conditions.

First one was 5-10sec exp with ND filter, looks around 16-20mm and taken at sunset (Twelve Apostles, bottom of Aus, sun is in the West). Second is just a standard photo, fast shutter, bit of zoom going on & taken at middayish.

>>2815116
>Would I be right in saying that the first one was taken at dawn with a wide angle lens, nd filter and a longish exposure time and the other was taken with a normal lens in the afternoon?

Pretty much spot on. May also be dusk, but who cares. ND filter is a possibility, seeing as there's massive vignetting and silky water. Could have just been long exposure time and added in post though.
The second one is probably slightly on the tele side, but again, it's not far off.

>Would the second one widely be considered a bad photo?

Nah. I'd go so far as to say they're the same tier. I mean, there's not much difference in the composition, it's literally just zoomed in with no aesthetic payoff. The light in the first one (and many shitty gearfaggy photo-magazines will claim the opposite) isn't in any way inherently "better", just different. And I don't care much for the silky water if it has no function but to please in itself.

They're both solid postcard material. And that's not really a compliment.

>>2815239
>They're both solid postcard material. And that's not really a compliment.

Is it inevitable that photos of landmarks will turn out looking like postcards?

>>2815237
I had the same thought.

>>2815116
#2 is far more pleasant to look at to me.

The cliff in 1 has no contrast, ugly color, all underexposed due to the ND filter. Just unpleasant.

The water is nothing plus or minus either way. Babby's-first "oh long exposure water is a white cloud" If it had some beautiful objects up close and in high detail to contrast the white blur with, there'd be something to look at.

Sky is absolutely generic in 1. It looks like a sunset but due to long exposure, nothing is sharp or interesting in any interesting way.
It doesn't take away something, it just adds nothing worth looking at.

Whereas the 2nd picture has lots of interesting value contrast. The beach sand and cliff shadows are like a geometric painting in itself, then the cliff stone is interesting. The jutting rocks mid-water are 3d because of the positional lighting and shadows, but completely shit in the 1st one.
Essentially the 1st one ruined the entire subject matter (beautiful towers of rocks) just to show off that water blurs, which someone can see in any fucking ordinary river or lake with an ND filter.