Hot Spring, Lake Bogoria

[Ed Blagden]

Hello All

I'm new to this forum (but a long time reader of the LL) so please be gentle if not kind.

Would appreciate criticism of this image (taken at Lake Bogoria, Northern Rift Valley, Kenya, Feb 09).

Thanks

Ed

[attachment=14459:IMG_2273.jpg]

[wolfnowl]

Ed:  Sorry, but this does nothing for me... gentle enough?    

Mike.

[Ed Blagden]

Ed:  Sorry, but this does nothing for me... gentle enough?    

Mike.

Mike, gentle enough (a lot gentler than my critique of someone else which I just posted) but hugely uninformative... the scene in real life is pretty dramatic, where do you feel I have erred?

[byork]

Ed:  Sorry, but this does nothing for me... gentle enough?    

Mike.

Ed, Would have to agree with Mike here, in fact when it first loaded onto my monitor, my first reaction was "erggh". It's only a very small file but on closer inspection there does seem to be something to the scene. There appears to be some dramatic clouds in the background and the thermal activity should be interesting in the foreground...but it comes across as a big sepia mess. The colour is just, well, erggh. Perhaps it could have been better in colour, or my first gut feeling, a high contrast B&W.

Cheers
Brian

[Ed Blagden]

Ed, Would have to agree with Mike here, in fact when it first loaded onto my monitor, my first reaction was "erggh". It's only a very small file but on closer inspection there does seem to be something to the scene. There appears to be some dramatic clouds in the background and the thermal activity should be interesting in the foreground...but it comes across as a big sepia mess. The colour is just, well, erggh. Perhaps it could have been better in colour, or my first gut feeling, a high contrast B&W.

Cheers
Brian

Brian, thanks.  I think you're right: on reflection the big sepia mess doesn't work.  Here it is again, both as the original colour, and as you suggested a high contrast B&W.  I prefer the B&W.  But there is still something wrong with this shot, but I can't quite work out what it is.

Ed

[attachment=14484:IMG_2273.jpg]
[attachment=14485:IMG_2273_2.jpg]

[RSL]

Ed, Sepia-like toning only works on antique portraits. Most of those actually would be better as black and white. Sepia toning was a turn of the century fad.

Of the two revisions I like the high contrast B&W best. Brian has a good gut. On the color, how about a little cloud enhancement?

[attachment=14486:IMG_2273_3.jpg]

Maybe that was a bit too much.

[Stephane Desnault]

Hi Ed,

It doesn't work for me either. I know that each time I compose, I ask myself the question "Ok, now what is the subject of that picture?", with the understanding that "the landscape" is not an acceptable answer. So where should the eye lead? To the pond in the forground? or the water projections on the right? or the sky? There's no real clue to that in the picture you've taken.

I believe you when you say the scene was dramatic... but precisely your picture isn't. No "drama" in the composition, the colours or the contrast. It won't "seep through" by osmosis, from the subject to the photography: You have to work to put it there in the composition, the color contrasts, the light.

Have you tried reframing using the rule of thirds? As cliché as it is (no pun intended), it's usually an easy step to strengthen pictures.

[RSL]

Hi Ed,

I know that each time I compose, I ask myself the question "Ok, now what is the subject of that picture?", with the understanding that "the landscape" is not an acceptable answer. pictures.

Stephane, I think that's the best advice I've seen on here so far. Anyone who points a camera at something always should ask that question.

[button]

To me, this shot wants to be about the activity of the spring- dangerous hot water splattering everywhere should make the viewer anxious.  However, that's not happening here.  In my opinion here's why:

1)  The mountains in the background add nothing, and in fact weaken the composition significantly by creating confusion- a large line of rock acts as a stabilizing force, exactly what this shot doesn't need.  Also, their horizontal lines fight with the vertical of the errupting water.

2)  The time of day has provided harsh light, preventing any kind of mood from happening.  Since everything is illuminated, nothing is left to the imagination.  A dawn or dusk shot might have worked better.

3)  I think that the perspective that you have chosen does not engage the viewer.  I feel like I'm seeing this scene safely from afar.  If you had been closer and perhaps a bit lower to the ground from a different vantage point, you might have been able to create a sense of danger (maybe that wasn't possible).  

John

edit reason: spelling

[Ed Blagden]

Stephane, John,

Thanks very much - I really appreciate the comments.  One of my faults, I realise, is to try and get too much in to an image - a wide angle lens is a dangerous thing for me!

On the light being harsh, you have to realise that this photo was taken about 50 miles from the equator, at around 5pm - it is dark by 6pm.  The fact is that the light is harsh on the equator.  Basically you have the choice between harsh and flat (9am to 4pm) or harsh and textured (7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm).  In this case I upped the contrast to emphasize the "moonscape effect" which is the reality here for most of the day, especially in the desert regions.  But I take your point.

Russ - how did you do that??


Ed

[RSL]

Russ - how did you do that??
Ed

Ed, I'm not sure I improved it, but what I did was make an adjustment layer, click on the layer mask, add a short white to black gradient on the mask from the top of the frame to the tops of the mountains and then set the layer's blending mode to "multiply." The whole operation took about a minute. I just wanted to see what the shot looked like with the clouds darkened. I also tried pulling down the blue saturation in the layer (the sky), since there's too much blue up there, but I didn't like the result. Sometimes it's fun just to play around with something like that. Best thing of all is to get it right on the camera. If I come back with a frame I have to do more to than a bit of sharpening I always feel as if I blew it.

[button]

Basically you have the choice between harsh and flat (9am to 4pm) or harsh and textured (7am to 9am and 4pm to 6pm).  In this case I upped the contrast to emphasize the "moonscape effect" which is the reality here for most of the day, especially in the desert regions.  But I take your point.

I'll add this, which was a really tough lesson to learn personally:  if the shot isn't there, then it just isn't there, no matter how much you might want it to be.  However, just because your shot didn't receive the positive reaction that you had hoped for doesn't mean that you can't go back and really nail it next time.  

Take a look at my shots under "3 from Lake George" (I believe the post was called) that I posted some time back.  There's one in particular that I really wanted to work- the storm shot.  I hiked up a mountain with a tripod and bag of gear, and could have been struck by lightning.  I spent hours in photoshop playing with colors, etc.  I thought that I had surly earned praise.  But, in the end, it failed, and the critique I received reflected that.

Hey- you know what?  It was good medicine, and (I think) it made me a better photographer.  So, get back out there and shoot some more and show us!  I think you'll get a lot of mileage out of this forum.

John

[dalethorn]

Here it is again, both as the original colour, and as you suggested a high contrast B&W.  I prefer the B&W.  But there is still something wrong with this shot, but I can't quite work out what it is.

When I first saw this, it was a day or two after the PBS feature on super volcanos.  The huge lake ringed by the crater edges, etc.  And looking again, I think I see what the problem is, it isn't wide enough to show the complete subject.

[wolfnowl]

I'll add this, which was a really tough lesson to learn personally:  if the shot isn't there, then it just isn't there, no matter how much you might want it to be.  However, just because your shot didn't receive the positive reaction that you had hoped for doesn't mean that you can't go back and really nail it next time.  

Take a look at my shots under "3 from Lake George" (I believe the post was called) that I posted some time back.  There's one in particular that I really wanted to work- the storm shot.  I hiked up a mountain with a tripod and bag of gear, and could have been struck by lightning.  I spent hours in photoshop playing with colors, etc.  I thought that I had surly earned praise.  But, in the end, it failed, and the critique I received reflected that.

Hey- you know what?  It was good medicine, and (I think) it made me a better photographer.  So, get back out there and shoot some more and show us!  I think you'll get a lot of mileage out of this forum.

John

Ed:  "This doesn't work for me" was a polite way of saying that if the image, as presented was mine, I would have thrown it out.  As John said, and I agree, we have to be willing to listen and accept honest critiques because when we are, when we can weed through a thousand bad or mediocre shots and say (even only to ourselves) 'this is crap', then we learn to become more discerning about what we think is good.

For myself, the sepia image was just a blob.  It has no focus, no point of interest.  There was something going on, but the image didn't tell the story.  I prefer the colour version; I think it has more merit.  I did the following in about 1 minute in Lightroom... feel free to like it, or not.  In the end, it's your image.

[attachment=14500:IMG_2273.jpg]

Mike.
(not quite so gentle this time)

[RSL]

I did the following in about 1 minute in Lightroom... feel free to like it, or not.
Mike.
(not quite so gentle this time)

Great conversion, Mike. Isn't Vibrance wonderful?