A little color

[Jeremy Payne]

[RSL]

Jeremy, The first one is a fine example of what it's intended to be. I like the color and the scene. The second one is a great attempt, but the stumps in the background can't afford to be soft. You shot that one at f/9. You needed about f/14 or f/16. At f/16 you'd lose some sharpness through diffusion, but a very small amount of sharpening in Photoshop would bring it all back. I really like the composition and the subject -- even more than I like the first one, but it needs a re-shoot.

Yesterday I had a heart-breaker -- also no good because of softness. Manitou Springs was having an "art walk," so the town was full of people. I spent about two hours downtown doing street photography. I was shooting with a 35mm prime on my D3, and focusing manually. When the kid did this, I had a fraction of a second to shoot, and I missed the focus. I could kick myself around the block. I got some other shots that were good, but this one would have been worth the trip. It's the kind of thing HCB once wrote about: you get back and make your contacts, then you can see where you failed. Dang!!

[attachment=16743:Sep_19_2009_19.jpg]

[JeffKohn]

I pretty much share Russ's assessment. I've taken a lot of images like the first one. It's beautiful when you're there, but it just doesn't quite translate to a two-dimensional picture. You need a strong main subject, which I think you could have with the bleached-out dead trees except that they kind of get lost in the overall scene. There's also not much in the way of depth to the composition. Maybe if you could have gotten a little tighter on those dead trees (or closer) it would have worked. What I'm finding as I try to shoot these scenes every fall, is that if you're going to shoot the larger landscape (as opposed to isolating details), the leaf colors work great to enhance an already good composition, but they alone won't make the image.

On the second image, I think the problem is that there's no real transition in the DOF. You have the sharp reeds, and then the blurry stumps. I actually think that second shot is pretty good if you crop away the stumps though. I like the ripples in the water, and the fact that they make the reflection imperfect but recognizable (I tend to prefer those kinds of reflections to a perfect mirror reflection).

[jasonrandolph]

I pretty much echo Russ and Jeff on this.  For the first shot, I'm wondering what a very shallow DOF focused on the the tree trunks would do for the image.  I'm imagining a blurry collage of color (seems like you could do this in Photoshop, but it would take some time).  For the secong, I think the stumps need to be sharp.  Otherwise, they seem to be a distraction from the focal point of the image.

[Jeremy Payne]

Good stuff - thanks.  I will be revisiting this pond as the colors progress ... this weekend was a scouting mission ... I went out driving back roads with the GPS looking for spots ... found a few ... I am really looking forward to October's colors ...

Here's a close-up of the tree shot with the 1.7 TC II:

[Jeremy Payne]

For the first shot, I'm wondering what a very shallow DOF focused on the the tree trunks would do for the image.  I'm imagining a blurry collage of color (seems like you could do this in Photoshop, but it would take some time).

... well ...

[jasonrandolph]

Jeremy, this is one of those situations where the suggestion for improvement falls on its face.  It certainly makes me appreciate the original better.

[RSL]

... well ...

Jeremy, No.

[button]

Don't mean to pile on here, but the second version makes me seasick (I'm being serious!).  I guess there's just something about a blurry foreground that never works for me.  

I think I see what you're going for with the original, though- an appealing distribution of color.  If this is your goal, then maybe you can find a composition in your scouting that works through greater abstraction.  Perhaps fewer, well defined colorful elements could get you where you want to be.

John