Posted by Dan Truong on January 30, 2007 at 5:25 AM
My first time there (near i280 & i92).
The place makes for a nice flat hike/run/bike, and the view on the reservoir has a lot of potential. Last sunday, the forecast was for showers, and indeed there were a few drops. It also made for nice cloud covers.
I worked on PS to increase the presence of the clouds by decreasing the dynamic range -erh- I think.
Posted by John W. Wall on January 30, 2007 at 1:47 PM
I like the subdued feel of it. My wife and I were just biking out there a couple weeks ago, and your picture brings back the serenity of the place. It seems like all the action is out toward the horizon, and I wonder if a panorama leaving out the foreground would work well.
Posted by Richard Wong on January 30, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I used to live a few miles from Crystal Springs and it is a great place to take in the scenery though I wouldn't mind if less people felt the same way...
I agree about the foreground, seems a bit much with nothing going on when the emphasis should be on the clouds. I'm thinking more of a telephoto shot of the distant ridges
Posted by Cory Freeman on January 30, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I like the subdued and moody lighting you've presented here Dan. I may be of the minority, but I think the fg helps lead the eye into the middle and bg.
I have been past this place a million times (you know, on my way to the San Mateo coast. ) and I have to say that you have really captured its essence.
I am in agreement with Cory; the foreground is essential here. In addition to the "lead in", it also provides depth to the composition.
Posted by Dan Truong on February 1, 2007 at 4:31 AM
One thing I like about the foreground, that doesn't show at this resolution is the ripples on the lake. It was so calm that you get diffracting ripples that hypnotize. If I can post again, I'll show a close-up.
About the tele or cropping: I see what you guys mean, but I specifically chose to have the FG tree in: The reason is that often when I focus too much on the thing that seems interesting, the photo becomes dull, because it has no root or context. Also in here, just a tele on the range would yield a photo that lacks definition because it's a little foggy back there.
Note I also often do the reverse error, where I include too much, and loose the point of interrest.
It seems the trick here is the FG is really not that interresting by itself, so it does not draw you towards itself, but lets you wander towards the horizon. Well that's my attempt at rationalizing the photo...
Discussion
5 repliesThe place makes for a nice flat hike/run/bike, and the view on the reservoir has a lot of potential. Last sunday, the forecast was for showers, and indeed there were a few drops. It also made for nice cloud covers.
I worked on PS to increase the presence of the clouds by decreasing the dynamic range -erh- I think.
I agree about the foreground, seems a bit much with nothing going on when the emphasis should be on the clouds. I'm thinking more of a telephoto shot of the distant ridges
I have been past this place a million times (you know, on my way to the San Mateo coast.
I am in agreement with Cory; the foreground is essential here. In addition to the "lead in", it also provides depth to the composition.
About the tele or cropping: I see what you guys mean, but I specifically chose to have the FG tree in: The reason is that often when I focus too much on the thing that seems interesting, the photo becomes dull, because it has no root or context. Also in here, just a tele on the range would yield a photo that lacks definition because it's a little foggy back there.
Note I also often do the reverse error, where I include too much, and loose the point of interrest.
It seems the trick here is the FG is really not that interresting by itself, so it does not draw you towards itself, but lets you wander towards the horizon. Well that's my attempt at rationalizing the photo...