Reading mode: Light Dark

first pic post - be gentle

Go to last post
E

Edward in Chicago

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
473
Reaction score
11
Location
Chicago, IL, US
I really like the play of light with the ground and mossy features in the foreground. I think this is the kind of shot that would greatly benefit from a careful HDR treatment though, it is a little too contrasty.

--
http://rubinphoto.com
 
Not entirely sure why a person has to be in it. Part of the charm of this place was its sheer desolation and peacefulness.

As for contrast, I actually added a bit as the colours were a bit washed out.
 
I really like this. Nice soft range of colors, good patterns and good choice of angle. A natural shot would have been walking to your right to make the background tree mass 1/3 not 1/2 way but...you would have lost some of those feathering clouds.
Very nice! Thanks for sharing this.

Dean
 
Remeber, this is just my voice and it does not mean anything really.

You noticed two things. The light (It is special in this case) and the rock. The one just to the left of center.

It looks like you saw there was something there and you were trying to figure out what to do with it. Great start.

But this is what I would do.

First, vertical crops tend to have more "power" than horizontal crops. Not always but very often. Also, that big rock is an interesting aspect of the contrast (dump the HDR idea IMO. This shot works because of the contrast. We will see why) and it needs to be more of the image.

To do this, I will crop the image like:



Now, why did I choose this crop? Three things:

1) A center of interest. A foreground to pull me into the rest of the image. It is not a powerful foreground luckily. But it is there.



2) Why did I say I did not want a powerful foreground? Because there is a second competing foreground element. It is not an object so much as a shape. It is that wonderful "S" curve ( http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/022-27537/ ) created by the contrast of the light and dark reflections and shadows:



It is not a strong "S" curve but it perfectly encapsulates the foreground rock. So we have two contrasting foreground elements working together. Typically, this is not a good idea (competing foreground elements) but I think it works here very well. In this case, the two elements work together to form a single strong foreground.

3) The last element is the layers. You have three distinct layers in the image. This is what shows depth and is a classical compositional element:



So In my view, with this simple crop, you get to work with 3 "rules" of composition:

1) foreground
2) "S" curve
3) layers

and get to break 1 rule by having 1) and 2) work together. As a final tweak, you might even try B&W with the image since there is not much color to the shot and go with a nice high contrast "red" filter.

Steven

--
---
Fall 2007:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/images_fall_2007_downtown_chicago

2006 White Sands and Bisti Workshop
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/white_sands_and_bisti

 
I like the image although an HDR composite would have been nice to tame the contrast extremes. Also, everyone has their own style but I would have lowered the camera height, not the angle, but lower shooting position while keeping the horizon in the same position. I tend to like a little more foreground perspective. Just keep experimenting.

;) Fran
 
Edward,

I like the exposure on this broad contrast composition. Very challenging, executed very well. For what Steve said about the crop - I'll rarely crop a landscape composition as such, but that's because I always take at least a few landscape AND portrait compositions working a scene. That is, I agree that those orienations can be quite powerful, and something to keep in mind.

Steven,

Great advice, and extra kudos for the visual illustrations. Teaching one to fish goes a lot farther than suggesting to throw a fish in the composition w/o a reason. Nice going. Contributions like these are what make DPR the resource it can be. ;)

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing. ;)

 
Is it a nice sunset?
A horizon that you want us to see?
The water?
The rocks?
The sand?

When I said try adding life then that would at least give you a subject.
Edward in Chicago said:
Not entirely sure why a person has to be in it. Part of the charm of
this place was its sheer desolation and peacefulness.

As for contrast, I actually added a bit as the colours were a bit
washed out.
Click to expand...
--
EOSMan (got print button?)
http://www.pbase.com/eosman
 
--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing. ;)

 
Adding a faceless person could put the viewer in their shoes. Instead of having a landscape of a desolate but beautiful place, you could have a place to relax and think things over...

never underestimate the human presence.
 
I say bad, because the suggestion sounded like THE answer for all questionable compositions of this kind.

Just as well, more focus on the rock could work just as well. Or the FG growth. Or another subject. It doesn't have to be a human.

OTOH, if the suggestion was to place a human or critter in the composition to give it some scale, that's another story.
--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing. ;)

 
The subject depends on the viewer. I am very touched by the subject. I see beauty, textures, color changes with the different planes,. I see serenity, isolation and distance.
To the eye of the beholder?
 
I have many images with no obvious subject. These two for example:

http://www.pbase.com/btullis/image/86111696
http://www.pbase.com/btullis/image/85551457

Do these suffer for an indefinite subject, or do I not recognize the subject? Why do I like them (other than "you're weird", if you please. [g] ), or do others offer admiration?

This one is even more difficult for me to put a finger on, and I hold this one back because of it, but while we're discussing. . . I had to capture this scene. I was thinking "fall approaching, pre-peak" as the subject.

http://www.pbase.com/btullis/image/86922247

In PP, I was focused on the vertical grass transitioning to the randomness of the bush and partly exposed tree branchs, with more verticals in the background. But, am I just stroking myself?

(Sorry, Edward, don't mean to hijack the topic)

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing. ;)

 
It's OK to discuss this topic, and leave the other behind.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing. ;)

 
Perhaps a bit overexposed...well some blown hightlights, a lot of dynamic range there i'm sure so tough shot to make. water can be challenging with all those light reflections.

just converted to B&W, pulled down the birghtness (was just too bright for my tastes) eh doesn't look that great, but maybe it will give u some ideas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top