Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on April 16, 2016, 02:32:42 pm
-
Comments?
Jeremy
-
I think the foreground deserves a bit more detail in post. Also, I wonder about the benefit of the central placement of that rock formation in the background and the nice clouds on the right being cut off? I slight shift to the right at the time of capture might have been beneficial. If you'd want to salvage this shot, a square composition might help, as it usually works well with a central placement.
-
I think the foreground deserves a bit more detail in post. Also, I wonder about the benefit of the central placement of that rock formation in the background and the nice clouds on the right being cut off? I slight shift to the right at the time of capture might have been beneficial. If you'd want to salvage this shot, a square composition might help, as it usually works well with a central placement.
+1
-
+2
-
Is there more detail in the foreground? I think if you crop off some on the left and then perhaps a bit more on the bottom, the composition will be more interesting.
-
I think the foreground deserves a bit more detail in post. Also, I wonder about the benefit of the central placement of that rock formation in the background and the nice clouds on the right being cut off? I slight shift to the right at the time of capture might have been beneficial. If you'd want to salvage this shot, a square composition might help, as it usually works well with a central placement.
Fair point: I was concentrating too hard on the pool in the foreground and should have composed with more to the right. Live and learn.
I've opened up the foreground. I'm not too sure how a square crop would work, though: enlightenment would be appreciated!
Jeremy
-
Again, I think the best version would be about 1/3 of the way from the original to the new version, in which the foreground becomes too prominent, IMHO.
Definitely worth another go at it.
Eric
-
Not quite exact, but something like this?
-
Again, I think the best version would be about 1/3 of the way from the original to the new version, in which the foreground becomes too prominent, IMHO.
Heavy-handed Jeremy! I think, on reflection, that you're right.
Not quite exact, but something like this?
Interesting. Part of my framing problem was that I couldn't get any further back without falling over and I was already at 24mm on my 24-105. I find myself not wanting to lose any of the vertical extent. I'll chalk it up as a near miss, I think.
Jeremy
-
... I couldn't get any further back...
Actually, you only need one step to the right, not necessarily back. That way, the tidal pond with start from the left corner diagonally leading the eye to the rock formation in the middle. That step would also separate better the rock from the distant mountain. Turning the camera into a landscape orientation would also take care of too much foreground and would capture more of the cloud. Lowering the camera viewpoint might have been beneficial as well.
Post factum analysis, I know. But it is a skill that can be developed. Shoot, analyze, shoot, analyze, and at some point, all that analysis might pay the next time you shoot.
Buridan's ass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass) comes to mind. Faced with an overwhelming choice, interesting foreground, interesting middle ground, interesting background, clouds, reflections, etc. we end up trying to encompass it all in one shot. Rarely works, as it leaves the decision to the viewer, and viewers hate that. If you can't make up your mind what you want to show me, why should I (the viewer) bother? So, make up your mind and select. :)
-
What you clearly need to do, Jeremy, now that you have all of this sage advice from the (arm chair) experts, is go back to the exact location and wait for exactly the same cloud to appear under identical light conditions...
Eric
-
Post factum analysis, I know. But it is a skill that can be developed. Shoot, analyze, shoot, analyze, and at some point, all that analysis might pay the next time you shoot.
You're absolutely right. One thing I did learn on this trip was the importance of exactly that point. I have lots of shots which just don't quite work because I framed too tightly, cut off an edge, missed something that would have made a decent shot good.
But that's what a workshop is for!
Jeremy
-
Part of my framing problem was that I couldn't get any further back without falling over and I was already at 24mm on my 24-105.
Post factum for sure, but one suggestion not yet made would have been to try to stitch a pano. Of course, that becomes a different composition :P Thanks for the opportunity for vicarious learning; Iceland's on my bucket list!