Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM
OK, the scene isn't the Midwest but the photographer is.
I'm posting this here to have you guys/gals help me pick it apart, I want instructional criticism as I continue learning this art.
I took this last May, and had to scramble to the spot while the setting sun was fading. The canyon is enormous and I had little time to think out how to best compose this. I wanted to show scale, depth, and color as it was. I think I only succeeded in the color category. Anyway, it'd be helpful to hear from y'all how you might have composed differently, etc.
5D at 17mm, probably 1.6 sec (have to look), Singh-Ray 3-stop grad.
Thanks!
Posted by scott lanz on February 28, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Paul, pretty darn nice image of CNM. I like the light, the great sky, and the overall scene. I will say, however, that the foreground shrubs aren't doing much for me, and while the view is impressive, I would have liked to see more of the interesting rock formations to the right, if possible. It looks like the light was better on that side of the valley as well. As you noted, however, the light was fading fast, so your options may have been pretty limited. Just my $.02
Posted by Bruce Palla on February 28, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I'll second Scott's comments. I like the overall shot, but I have no experience with wide vistas. You may want to post this in Earth,Sea,Sky. There is some really informative feedback and techniques discussed there.
Posted by Darren Huski on February 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Paul-
You got a great location and light.
I think you got the sky, distant rocks, and the valley for a decent mid-ground. The thing I find lacking is foreground interest. The brush kinda frames the scene but I think a good rock or log or flowers or even standing at the edge and looking down would have made that more powerful foreground that would tie everything else together.
Look at the "hoodoo" rocks at the nearby point on the right in your image. If you could get to them you would have an awesome foreground element.
BTW- post this in the ESS gallery and you will get lots of feedback.
Keep working it!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 28, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Thanks guys, i think you hit the same thing bugging me. I didn't set up for the foreground, I was so enamored with the view and the sky. Even now once you all mentioned that, just as a viewer of the image I want to walk up closer to the edge to see more of the valley and the right side, and I can't because it's a still image! Good lesson learned here. Boy, composition is like a golf swing, so many nuances to learn, remember when on the field (or course), then master.
I'm not an expert on ultra-wide lenses (my widest lens is a 28mm equiv.), but I can speak to the design aspect of the image. To get right to the point, I pretty much agree with the assertions of the other guys. The quality of light is excellent, the scenery is obviously quite dramatic, but the foreground feels unresolved. I personally find that ultra wide shooters are most successful when they incorporate a strong use of line in the foreground to relate and connect to the background. While it's a bit of a contrived approach (personal opinion obviously), it's visually powerful. Composition is a difficult thing to discuss, because a lot of plays out intuitively in the field. In a lot of ways this image plays by the "rules", but there's obviously more to the process. I can't really comment on what I "would have done", as I don't know what was actually available to you in the field. I probably would have lost the intruding foreground element in the lower left corner for sure...beyond that is hard to say. Let me know if anything needs clarifying.
Best regards!
Posted by Toni Lankerd on March 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Ditto to what everyone else said, Paul. My first two actual thoughts were...there's a tilt to the right and I'm not sure about the bright area in the sky on the left. Then I scanned over the foreground and pretty much came up with the same opinion as everyone else.
As for learning composition...I go by intuition 99% of the time. The ideal thing here might have been...shoot what you see first....then if you have time (considering the lighting), look around, left, right, behind you, and see what really catches your eye.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Excellent, this is the feed back I needed, and I totally agree with y'all. Thanks for helping me to "see"!
Late again, but for what it's worth, I agree completely with the previously expressed sentiments about the FG here.
Something I learned the hard way a long time ago back in the film era when I was just getting serious about shooting landscapes: a good view doesn't necessarily translate into a good photograph. I shot several roles of film at Shenandoah N.P. when I kept running across great view after great view. When I got the film back a couple of weeks later I was appalled at how bad the shots were. Now, what you have here (lots of nice elements) is far better than the dreck that I produced at Shenandoah, since only part of my problem at the time was a lack of attention to FG composition , but this still has a tinge of the Great View Syndrome to my eye.
There have been some great suggestions in this thread; I agree that when shooting ultra-wide it's almost imperative to either have a strong FG object for the near-far thing or to have something that provides a natural leading line into the scene...or both. I think the best way to improve is to look at a lot of images that you like and try to identify what it is about them that makes them work for you. This can help provide a kind of knowledge base that you can draw upon in the field.
Discussion
8 repliesI'm posting this here to have you guys/gals help me pick it apart, I want instructional criticism as I continue learning this art.
I took this last May, and had to scramble to the spot while the setting sun was fading. The canyon is enormous and I had little time to think out how to best compose this. I wanted to show scale, depth, and color as it was. I think I only succeeded in the color category. Anyway, it'd be helpful to hear from y'all how you might have composed differently, etc.
5D at 17mm, probably 1.6 sec (have to look), Singh-Ray 3-stop grad.
Thanks!
You got a great location and light.
I think you got the sky, distant rocks, and the valley for a decent mid-ground. The thing I find lacking is foreground interest. The brush kinda frames the scene but I think a good rock or log or flowers or even standing at the edge and looking down would have made that more powerful foreground that would tie everything else together.
Look at the "hoodoo" rocks at the nearby point on the right in your image. If you could get to them you would have an awesome foreground element.
BTW- post this in the ESS gallery and you will get lots of feedback.
Keep working it!
Thanks for the feedback! Great help!
I'm not an expert on ultra-wide lenses (my widest lens is a 28mm equiv.), but I can speak to the design aspect of the image. To get right to the point, I pretty much agree with the assertions of the other guys. The quality of light is excellent, the scenery is obviously quite dramatic, but the foreground feels unresolved. I personally find that ultra wide shooters are most successful when they incorporate a strong use of line in the foreground to relate and connect to the background. While it's a bit of a contrived approach (personal opinion obviously), it's visually powerful. Composition is a difficult thing to discuss, because a lot of plays out intuitively in the field. In a lot of ways this image plays by the "rules", but there's obviously more to the process. I can't really comment on what I "would have done", as I don't know what was actually available to you in the field. I probably would have lost the intruding foreground element in the lower left corner for sure...beyond that is hard to say. Let me know if anything needs clarifying.
Best regards!
As for learning composition...I go by intuition 99% of the time. The ideal thing here might have been...shoot what you see first....then if you have time (considering the lighting), look around, left, right, behind you, and see what really catches your eye.
Something I learned the hard way a long time ago back in the film era when I was just getting serious about shooting landscapes: a good view doesn't necessarily translate into a good photograph. I shot several roles of film at Shenandoah N.P. when I kept running across great view after great view. When I got the film back a couple of weeks later I was appalled at how bad the shots were. Now, what you have here (lots of nice elements) is far better than the dreck that I produced at Shenandoah, since only part of my problem at the time was a lack of attention to FG composition
There have been some great suggestions in this thread; I agree that when shooting ultra-wide it's almost imperative to either have a strong FG object for the near-far thing or to have something that provides a natural leading line into the scene...or both. I think the best way to improve is to look at a lot of images that you like and try to identify what it is about them that makes them work for you. This can help provide a kind of knowledge base that you can draw upon in the field.