Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Panoramas  (Read 3359 times)

Snow Guy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
    • http://
Panoramas
« on: April 18, 2008, 04:22:25 PM »

Hi, this is my first time here and I am interested about photo critques. I am somewhat new at this.
Logged
- Jeff

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
Panoramas
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2008, 04:38:37 PM »

Hi There, and welcome to the list!

These are certainly panoramas of mountains... what is it your images are trying to say?

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings

Snow Guy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
    • http://
Panoramas
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2008, 04:43:24 PM »

I think the topic of the pictures are saying how vast the mountains are.
Logged
- Jeff

Geoff Wittig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
Panoramas
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2008, 05:29:41 PM »

Quote
Hi, this is my first time here and I am interested about photo critques. I am somewhat new at this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Technically good images that are lacking something compositionally. The image on the left—Mt. Baker?—is nicely exposed and looks sharp, but I find myself really wanting to see what's going on in the foreground just below the image. It's frustrating, like looking out a window that's just a little too high.
The right hand image shows some pleasant snow and trees, but there's no compositional organization to it; really just a panoramic snapshot.

Panoramic images have their own internal logic and æsthetic. They have the potential to show what it really feels like to stand in a certain place at a certain time and look out at the world. But to achieve this they generally need some kind of foreground detail to anchor the image and provide a sense of depth. It also helps to think through how much "stuff" to include at each end, to make a visually satisfying arrangement. At least that's been the case with panoramics I've tried.
Logged

Snow Guy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
    • http://
Panoramas
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2008, 07:13:45 PM »

The first one was Mt Rainier. I tried to crop it a little but had to end up makeing less long tell me if it improved.
Logged
- Jeff

Geoff Wittig

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
Panoramas
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2008, 11:03:23 PM »

Quote
The first one was Mt Rainier. I tried to crop it a little but had to end up makeing less long tell me if it improved.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's a technically competent image. But it doesn't really convey what it feels like to be looking out at this awesome mountain; instead it looks like a painted movie backdrop, because of the lack of depth cues in the foreground. Undoing the cropping doesn't change this very much; everything going on in the image is obviously a long distance away.

Of course, this is just me talking; I have no special artistic training or expertise. But for my own panos, I have found that they consistently have far more presence and impact when there's some detail in the foreground (like a gnarled photogenic tree or some flowers) to provide a visual indication of three-dimensional depth.

Like so:
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up