Hi Graeme,
First thoughts: Too much uninteresting middle- and fore-ground. Also, light is flat and dull. Perhaps you could have tried zooming in on those distant trees and their reflections with a longer lens. Could be an interesting picture there in the right light. Might be worth returning at dawn or dusk. Hope I wasn`t too blunt!
Posted by Graeme Lee on October 5, 2007 at 6:54 PM
After picking myself off the ground and staggering around my living room, no you weren't too blunt Jeremy Just the kind of feedback I am looking for. As I said, I know it's not a great image, but I seem to struggle on knowing what I need to do to make a great image. Creativity isn't my strong point and I know I'm going to find it hard with landscapes....but I'm determined to get a cracking image if it's the last thing I do This is only my second effort really at a landscape and if I look back on my bird images, there's been a lot of improvement, so I'll keep plugging away .Thanks
i'd agree with jeremy about the middle emptiness. you've tried to include some foreground interest, which is what generally makes a very strong landscape, as opposed to just a photo of something interesting in the distance. the problem here is that the foreground interest (the rock) is too small and squeezed into the corner. this makes the middle area too vast and empty. the trees to the left of centre are the strong point, so i think it's just a case of wandering around until you can find some suitable foreground matter that helps you strengthen those trees. although a sunset or sunrise would make this a lot stronger, it still wouldn't make it as good as strong foreground content would under atmospheric light circumstances. have a look at david clapps 'spin the wheel' image to see how he's used the forground to great effect.
hope this helps,
mark
Posted by Peter Barritt on October 6, 2007 at 5:29 AM
Hi Graeme,
Interesting spot and i quite like the lighting. Usually landscapes look right with about 1/3rd sky and 2/3rd land or vice versa. You could have done with more sky and probably a graduated filter or double exposure.Ideally you could do with making better use of the S in the river. Perhaps a higher vantage point? Forget the cowpat bottom left. With a great sky the reflections here could be very interesting.
Good spot and worth returning with magical lighting.
Hope this helps. Peter Barritt
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM
G-man - I quite like this shot in a way and I'm pretty certain I can see where your head was when you took it.
But first off I'd say this - if I was greated with flat water mirroring an impressive sky the first shot i'd go for would have the skylines lowest level on the frames centerline - if you like, going for perfect symetry between the top and bottom of the frame.
The second shot I'd pull from this scene would have been a portrait format with the skyline 1/3rd up the frame thus giving 2/3rds sky. My PoV would be low and sufficiently far enough back to get that interesting rock entirely in the frame (it's not really a cowpat is it?????).
If you look at a lot of really 'belting' but non-vista type landscapes the photographer quite often utilises a foreground feature (as long as it's not a cowpat)
In PP you've given yourself a blending halo - try doing the simple thing Graeme and paste the FG image in a new layer atop the sky image and then use an eraser with a softness of less than 10 and drop the opacity to sub 50 and the flow rate to sub 50 and have a play - the trees are 'black' anyway in the FG image so erasing then to the BG image behind wont matter and you'll be able to get the sky all the way down to the hill and the FG skyline.
Give it a go and then as Peter says - go back and have another crack with some moody lighting
PS - No, I didn't infer your head was up your a**e when you took the shot either - far from it
Posted by Graeme Lee on October 6, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Thanks for the feedback guys. Appreciated very much...and no, it's not a cowpat Some credit please!!
and yeah, on further inspection, that's some halo I've created there Andy
My blending consisted of dropping the darker exposure onto the lighter one, adding a layer mask and then adding some gaussian blur.... it's like magic, but no control really hence my next posting asking for some advice on blending. Have agood night all, I'm off on the lash tonight
Nice sky and quite nice light too but I'd be tempted to include much more of the sky and use the reflection - kind of like in the attached image but not necessarily that comp/crop. Tristan
Posted by Mike Smith on October 7, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Just back from the weekend and Tristan beat me to it..., I also saw the leading reflections, for once you don't need foreground interest - a bit of a rule breaker but it works in this instance, the highlights make great leading lines to the focal point of the line of trees - all that needed was the foreground removing as it contributes very little
Discussion
11 repliesA blend of 2 images. I know it's not a great image but be interested in what people would do composition wise here.
Thanks for any comments
1d2, 17-40 @17mm, f16, ISO 200, tripod, pretty early!
First thoughts: Too much uninteresting middle- and fore-ground. Also, light is flat and dull. Perhaps you could have tried zooming in on those distant trees and their reflections with a longer lens. Could be an interesting picture there in the right light. Might be worth returning at dawn or dusk. Hope I wasn`t too blunt!
hi graeme,
i'd agree with jeremy about the middle emptiness. you've tried to include some foreground interest, which is what generally makes a very strong landscape, as opposed to just a photo of something interesting in the distance. the problem here is that the foreground interest (the rock) is too small and squeezed into the corner. this makes the middle area too vast and empty. the trees to the left of centre are the strong point, so i think it's just a case of wandering around until you can find some suitable foreground matter that helps you strengthen those trees. although a sunset or sunrise would make this a lot stronger, it still wouldn't make it as good as strong foreground content would under atmospheric light circumstances. have a look at david clapps 'spin the wheel' image to see how he's used the forground to great effect.
hope this helps,
mark
Interesting spot and i quite like the lighting. Usually landscapes look right with about 1/3rd sky and 2/3rd land or vice versa. You could have done with more sky and probably a graduated filter or double exposure.Ideally you could do with making better use of the S in the river. Perhaps a higher vantage point? Forget the cowpat bottom left. With a great sky the reflections here could be very interesting.
Good spot and worth returning with magical lighting.
Hope this helps. Peter Barritt
But first off I'd say this - if I was greated with flat water mirroring an impressive sky the first shot i'd go for would have the skylines lowest level on the frames centerline - if you like, going for perfect symetry between the top and bottom of the frame.
The second shot I'd pull from this scene would have been a portrait format with the skyline 1/3rd up the frame thus giving 2/3rds sky. My PoV would be low and sufficiently far enough back to get that interesting rock entirely in the frame (it's not really a cowpat is it?????).
If you look at a lot of really 'belting' but non-vista type landscapes the photographer quite often utilises a foreground feature (as long as it's not a cowpat)
In PP you've given yourself a blending halo - try doing the simple thing Graeme and paste the FG image in a new layer atop the sky image and then use an eraser with a softness of less than 10 and drop the opacity to sub 50 and the flow rate to sub 50 and have a play - the trees are 'black' anyway in the FG image so erasing then to the BG image behind wont matter and you'll be able to get the sky all the way down to the hill and the FG skyline.
Give it a go and then as Peter says - go back and have another crack with some moody lighting
PS - No, I didn't infer your head was up your a**e when you took the shot either - far from it
and yeah, on further inspection, that's some halo I've created there Andy
My blending consisted of dropping the darker exposure onto the lighter one, adding a layer mask and then adding some gaussian blur.... it's like magic, but no control really hence my next posting asking for some advice on blending. Have agood night all, I'm off on the lash tonight
Tristan's idea is what would I try to acomplish. Those clouds are what makes this image.
Cheers,
Marko
I think the light was quite good, but it's probably my processing that has murdered it