Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Parc l'Orme - Montreal  (Read 1128 times)

RobbieV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
    • My work.
Parc l'Orme - Montreal
« on: July 03, 2012, 11:52:41 pm »



Slowly improving my techniques and methods while trying to stay true to my vision.

Like my previous post, I'll outline my reasoning for composition. Advice and comments are thoughtfully ingested.

Tree branches in top right balance white highlights in the clouds at the top The eyes follow the clouds down the photo to the bulbous cloud. Then to the islands starting left to right with help from the bright cloud highlights above the leftmost island. Skip to the next island, and end up at the sparkling water and gentle orange cast of the setting sun. Follow the smattering of white clouds back up to the tree branches and repeat (if necessary/worthwhile). ::)

Some things I will critique myself on. The white highlights in the uppermost cloud are a bit harsh. The tree branches may be distracting, but I decided to compose the shot with them to add interests. The middle of the V where the clouds meet looks like haloing, even though it isnt.

And these...I assume they are from over sharpening/processing? At this size they aren't a concern, but I would like to be able to edit for large prints and learn how to avoid ending up with these in my processed photos. Is it as simple as pouring over every part of your photo as you sharpen or/and process or is there more to it?



Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Parc l'Orme - Montreal
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2012, 03:37:02 am »

That's a lovely scene and a wonderful formation of clouds. I don't think the image as a whole is helped by the tree branches, though, despite your reasoning; it would be better without them. I'll let others comment on the reasons for the haloes.

Jeremy
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
Re: Parc l'Orme - Montreal
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2012, 05:30:03 am »

I spent about half an hour with this image. I love it!
The branches don't bother me but I don't think that they add much to your image. On the positive side, they fill the top right corner…

Haloes can be the result of too much level/curves adjustments in Photoshop. Add some sharpening and they can become obvious.

One question: is it just a one shot image or two or more shots?
Logged
Francois

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Parc l'Orme - Montreal
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2012, 10:09:06 am »

Robbie,

It's a fine shot, and I think the branches in the upper right are necessary, or at least don't detract from the picture. I do wish the cluster were a bit smaller.

But why do you feel you have to explain and explain? The picture either stands on its own and succeeds, or it doesn't. No amount of explanation can change that. Your personal critique sounds like the kind of nattering I'd expect from someone with an advanced degree in art history --someone who can't "do," and, as a result, teaches. This picture makes it obvious you can "do," so why not leave the teaching to someone else.

It's obvious that the light border in the V isn't haloing. If it were, it'd be visible all the way up the edge of the cloud.

Francois has explained the source of the obvious haloes in the bright clouds. But it's worth pointing out again that good composition and correct exposure always are critical. The idea that you can "save" a picture in post-processing appeals to people who go for big-time cropping and enough layers in Photoshop to force most of the  file onto a scratch disk, but the picture already has succeeded or failed once the shutter's passed over the sensors. You still need some post-processing to overcome shortcomings in the equipment, but no amount of post-processing can overcome shortcomings in the photographer.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2798
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Parc l'Orme - Montreal
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2012, 05:47:02 pm »

I love the clouds and the colours. The photo has a real dynamic to it.

I do find it to be long and narrow feeling which is the result of the narrow strip of water along the bottom and knowing there is more cloud to the left. As everything seems to be revolving around the blue sky, it seems to be a dead spot with nothing there to "complete" the photograph.

Just my thoughts.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

RobbieV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 281
    • My work.
Re: Parc l'Orme - Montreal
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2012, 05:57:47 pm »

Russ your words are quite helpful. I suppose I feel the need to map out my composition and rationale behind it because I want to learn as much as I can from the more experienced members. I have a background in graphic design and theory, but not all of it necessarily translates to landscape photography. Or, I should say that I don't want to assume it all translates. I am testing my knowledge of composition and outlining it alongside the photo.

In university, a favourite professor of mine encouraged us to produce assignments in other forms than the traditional essay. For one project, I chose to do a hypertext. In it, I included a bibliography and works cited. My professor applauded me for moving past the essay format, but questioned why I still included a bibliography? You're "writing with" the authors, not plagiarizing them" (he was a critical new media theory and german lit professor).

I mention the story because it seems I'm stuck in my old ways a bit. I view the forums and this web page as a vast wealth of information with which I have learned and continue to learn a lot from. From now on, I'll let my creation speak, and continue to listen with open ears and act with direction and purpose.

Thanks for clearing the fog for me (once again).

Robbie,

But why do you feel you have to explain and explain? The picture either stands on its own and succeeds, or it doesn't. No amount of explanation can change that. Your personal critique sounds like the kind of nattering I'd expect from someone with an advanced degree in art history --someone who can't "do," and, as a result, teaches. This picture makes it obvious you can "do," so why not leave the teaching to someone else.

It's obvious that the light border in the V isn't haloing. If it were, it'd be visible all the way up the edge of the cloud.

Francois has explained the source of the obvious haloes in the bright clouds. But it's worth pointing out again that good composition and correct exposure always are critical. The idea that you can "save" a picture in post-processing appeals to people who go for big-time cropping and enough layers in Photoshop to force most of the  file onto a scratch disk, but the picture already has succeeded or failed once the shutter's passed over the sensors. You still need some post-processing to overcome shortcomings in the equipment, but no amount of post-processing can overcome shortcomings in the photographer.


The image is a composition. I created a second island and added a bit more water to taste. Here is the image as shot, default settings in LR3.5. I know that adding the island will upset some photographers, and I was initially hesitant in editing the photo in this way.


Looking back, I should have exposed a bit brighter to get cleaner highlights in order to reduce the halos, or be more careful with my processing and sharpening.


I agree with Russ' last paragraph even though it seems I contradict myself by doing so.

I appreciate the critique and discussion.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up