Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

No Foreground and Wide No Foreground

Discussion

12 replies
Posted by Russ Shugart on June 17, 2011 at 8:46 AM
No Foreground and Wide No Foreground
Here's the last two from the other morning at Twin Lakes. Please let me know which you like more, either of these or the one I posted Tuesday with the foreground shore and driftwood. Thanks so much!

Russ
http://www.AlpineGalleria.com
Posted by Russ Shugart on June 17, 2011 at 8:48 AM
Here's a wider version. Again, thanks in advance for you critique's.

Russ
www.AlpineGalleria.com
Posted by Amy Lindsey on June 17, 2011 at 8:54 AM
I like #1 above best. The driftwood and mountain reflection merge in your first post was too much for me. I wanted to reach into the image and move the wood about a foot away from the reflection! :biggrin: For a self-taught artist, you've got a really nice image!
Posted by Corinna Stoeffl on June 17, 2011 at 9:35 AM
The colors are richer in #1. I think the amount of sky and therefore the amount of light in #2 dulls the colors overall. If the merge would not be there in the other image, it would be my favorite.
Posted by Jack Garrett on June 17, 2011 at 10:01 AM
I like number 1 a little better. In comparing this to the ones from the other day, the foreground in the previous set is fairly dark so I don't think it adds a lot to the image. I think I like the first image in this set best.
Posted by Koveh Tavakkol on June 17, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Of these two, #1 is definitely better because of the light and richer colors. I agree with Jack though on the previous.
Posted by Todd Caudle on June 17, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Please share your technique for making those two huge bodies of water stand still for you, Russ. Don't know that I've ever seen Twin Lakes that glassy. Beautiful images, love the light and clouds.
Posted by Mark Hespenheide on June 17, 2011 at 11:30 AM
I think I would like the composition of the second better, all other things being equal... but they're not equal. The moment of light on the top of the peak in the first definitely makes it better to my eye.
Posted by Jack Brauer on June 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM
My pick would be #2, because although the light in #1 is better, it's still not nearly as good as your previous post, so therefore I prefer the drastically different wide comp of #2. The greens of the lit forest are intriguing too.
Posted by Jody Grigg on June 17, 2011 at 3:26 PM
#2 would be my pick because overall it is a lot ligher and has more going on with the whole image, #1 just has too much of a darkness thru the middle section, even though #1 has the better light.
Posted by Sarah Marino on June 17, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Hi Russ - I really like both images. I think I like the processing overall for the first images (a bit more vibrant), but overall like both compositions. Lightening up the middle on the first one would be one small tweak that could really make it pop. I would be happy to have either of these in my portfolio.
Posted by Mark Nobles on June 17, 2011 at 11:36 PM
Nice work Russ,
I've always been drawn to more of a panoramic view so #2 does it for me. It looks like you could bring out the same color and clarity on the peaks in #2 that I see in #1. They are both outstanding! :toast:
Posted by Kurt Bowman on June 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM
I didn't see the Tuesday post yet Russ, but of these 2, I like the second one best. I just like the overall comp better and a little more look of the sky.