Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: sdwilsonsct on December 16, 2013, 03:58:02 pm
-
One recent evening. Suggestions welcome.
-
I suggest you frame them and then show them in a gallery somewhere.
-
Beautifully done!! I agree with Justan
-
I suggest you frame them and then show them in a gallery somewhere.
+1. I'm envious.
-
Wonderful series. I would like to see the bales in #1 with the sky of the other ones (sunset or sunrise?).
-
Sumptuous skies! It's really a beautiful set of images, well worth framing.
-
Very nice series.
Due to the basically identical composition and the identical sky which just changes colors it makes a great coherent set.
Well done !
-
Thanks for the feedback!
I have since straightened out the horizon in 4, by running each of the three vertical shots through PTLens separately before merging. Knowing that a bunch of eyeballs are looking at an image concentrates the mind wonderfully.
-
I really like #4 color and the contrast between lines in the clouds and lines in the field. I like them all.
-
Scott, not crazy about the others as images, memorics certainly, but the barn is an interesting one. I don't remember when seeing this barn before if the sides are splayed out a bit naturally or not. Some thoughts. The right vis. corner is vertical...but the left two vis. corners are not, as well as the ventilators at roof peak...these are all "bending slightly inward"...set against the vertical right barn corner and the horizon line on right which essentially level...seems a "bit off" to me (the roof line of the tin shed on left slopes down to center too) and not working well together. I might work on some alternate versions..."straightening" some of these elements a bit in PS Adapt. Wide Angle or similar. - and see what it looks like. I personally don't have any hard and fast rules about converging verticals in architecture...but in this image there are question marks so to speak. I also would have shots some with cam. loc. right a bit to give some spread btw sun and barn right side...but realize these very fleeting micro-moments /B
-
Thanks, Nancy and Brandt.
There seem to be no straight walls (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59795859@N00/8209051684/in/set-72157626043140061) out here, Brandt, with structures built on simple poured concrete on top of clay that expands and contracts with the seasons. I use t/s and PTLens to get part way straight, but I may just have to accept it.
-
Where is "here" - Saskatchewan or Alberta or northern Ontario?
-
Where is "here" - Saskatchewan or Alberta or northern Ontario?
Saskatchewan, just north of the North Dakota -- Montana line.
-
All of these are nice and will work well together as a set, but my favorite of the group is the first one. The repeating shapes set against the amazing sky are just fabulous.
-
Thanks, Nancy and Brandt.
There seem to be no straight walls (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59795859@N00/8209051684/in/set-72157626043140061) out here, Brandt, with structures built on simple poured concrete on top of clay that expands and contracts with the seasons. I use t/s and PTLens to get part way straight, but I may just have to accept it.
You are using highly engineered equipment that is designed so that these two-dimensional illusions of space and form show the dihedral edges and outer contours of man-made objects that we "know" to be straight and plumb as straight and plumb. That expensive illusion is more important than adhering to the specifics of the objects depicted.
Additionally, the problem with the Barn picture isn't that the corners of the walls aren't plumb, but that the entire object appears to be distorted in a way that matches the distortion made by less-than-ideal lenses. There is a uniformity to the slumping of the picture-left side of the barn, and that uniformity extends to the other objects and space depicted nearby on the picture plane.
I agree with Brandt that this is a problem that should be fixed, or that a fix should be attempted. The image is worth making a better picture.
The other pictures have — to my eye, obviously — other subtle distortions of space the perception of which detracts from the emotional reaction to the illusion of vastness. I would like to see these both close to airless, and deep — a hard illusion to pull off. Any deformation of the picture plane mitigates their impact. They are wonderful, specific, evocative images — well worth the additional efforts to iron flat the surface wrinkles and fix them hard and fast so the viewer can enter and experience the presence you're creating.
-
I agree with Brandt that this is a problem that should be fixed, or that a fix should be attempted.
Thanks, Kirby. Brandt has been sending more suggestions along this line via PM, and I have started reworking these.
Glad you liked #1, Bret, I do too.
-
I particularly like #4, which I think is a great example of when less can equal more - excellent work Scott ;)
Dave
-
I particularly like #4, which I think is a great example of when less can equal more - excellent work Scott ;)
Dave
+1
-
These images are stunning!
-
Thanks, Dave, Terry and Murat. These kinds of positive comments (and negative comments, and no comments!) encourage me to get better.
Straightened versions of 1 and 4 are here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59795859@N00/sets/72157639018649733/).