Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: sdwilsonsct on July 21, 2012, 07:11:17 am
-
Three from last weekend. Are any of these more effective than others in conveying flow? Suggestions for both composition and processing are welcome.
Processing has been mostly the usual dodging and curve adjustments.
Thanks!
-
Compositionally the second image wins hands down.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I think the first one conveys flow the best. The second has the best overall composition, but I would crop the top of the image slightly above the river, leaving out the sky. The third does nothing for me.
-
I'm not sure that any of them conveys flow as opposed to turbulence. I agree with Tony that the second is the best shot, and perhaps (since it's so obviously a river) it's the closest to suggesting flow.
They're all a bit dull and muted, but maybe that's just the way the light was.
Jeremy
-
Thanks for your comments!
Tony, yes, #2 provides helpful context and framing. I have thought about cropping #2, Walt, but then it starts to approach #3. Here's #2 cropped at the bottom from an HDR capture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59795859@N00/7583786400/in/photostream/lightbox/
Jeremy: turbulence vs flow: good point.
Capturing flow in a small stream can be effective with a few seconds of exposure, but I wanted to retain the chaos here. I included #3 because of the layers of water at the bottom.
-
Thanks for posting these images. To my mind, none really portray flow...and I agree with Kikashi that they are more illustrative of turbulance. Flow to me would be more 'flowy'.... smooth movement rather than turbid.
In the first image, the rock wall background is superfluous and to me serves no purpose.
The second is compositionally more pleasing, but isn't extraordinary for me sorry.
The third image is just sort of a big area of white turbulent water and with bita of rock around it which aren't sort of balanced and feel a bit awkward for me.
Chaotic flow = turbulence or turbidity.... so perhaps if you have the term 'flow' in your mind there may be some incongruency with your intention and what is actually in front of you. I would suggest choosing a word or words which are more in alignment with the actual movement of the water ...and perhaps you may connect more with the result you are attempting to achieve.
Julie
-
Scott - Thanks for posting these. I have been trying to image turbulent flow in a pleasing way for quite a while. It is a real challenge and rather personal as one viewers chaos is another viewers beauty. As per our earlier exchange about the National Geographic images - it would seem that you have to weave the complex flow into a strong contextual structure so that the 3 second viewer (all of us) can appreciate the structure and those that want to look deeper can linger and do so.
As the others have suggested #2 has the strongest composition but I actually prefer #3 because of my interest in the subject. As is well born out in the recent discussion in the critiques forum - people basically see what they want to see.
-
I like the second image the most.
But none of the images make the water move, rather to me they seem to freeze the water.
This is not to say that "freezing" is not as good as "moving". That is the prerogative of the artist.
I would add a little more local contrast in the darker areas.
-
Great direct responses, Julie: thank you. Your thoughts on careful wording are spot-on and one reason why I sometimes post images without comment. Here, though, I was looking for feedback. "Power" or "violence" might have been better than "flow".
I also like #3, Chuck. With your interests, you shoulda been there!
Thanks, Somendra: I have applied curves to parts of the water and will explore this further.
-
I think the first one conveys flow the best. The second has the best overall composition, but I would crop the top of the image slightly above the river, leaving out the sky. The third does nothing for me.
i agree with you walt roycraft the first one coveys flow is the best