Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: pollarda on June 16, 2015, 12:55:44 am
-
I shot these in Goblin Valley this weekend. They aren't quite as strong as I'd like but I think they both have potential. I'd love some feedback. Or, perhaps, these are better than I'm giving them credit for....
Thanks,
Art
-
Very strong compositions, where the sky has lots of interest, hence complementing the rocks in a fine way.
-
The b/w processing is great, as is the composition. The first one is particular impressive imho.
-
Good stuff. The sky's the thing.
-
+1!
-
The subjects, i.e. the landscape objects and sky are both very nice. I think that the open sky areas in both are a bit too dark and create a hyper-contrasted sky area that visually over-dominates the landscape below...in some ways the image then becomes about "contrast". I think the landscape elements should have just as much visual weight as the skies ideally. I like second one better, but in that view, would like to see a little more on bottom and sides...bit less on top.
-
Like the 2nd as it is.
But I would crop the first something like this.
Thierry
-
I agree about the crop on #1. Nice image.
-
Thanks everyone for the positive comments as well as the suggestions. They are really appreciated.
Thanks for the suggestion on the cropping of image #1.
One question about cropping: What do people tend to do in regards to cropping if the optimal crop is a strange aspect ratio compared to the usual print aspect ratios? I have these visions of having a portfolio comprised of photos of unusual aspect ratios. Should I worry about it or not?
-
Love the way the B&W is processed.
I actually have the same questions as Art with regards to unusual aspect ratio. Is it pretty customary to make your own mat?
-
Like the 2nd as it is.
But I would crop the first something like this.
Thierry
This crop is exactly what I was thinking of. And while the photos are very dramatic, I wonder if they are a bit over-processed?
-
They may have a bit of an over processed look. The question in my mind is are they over processed because they are over processed or because (and I didn't say anything above), these are both infrared. Because they are IR, they will have a bit of a dramatic look depending on the subject. If they are over processed, which of these would you say that it is?
FWIW: I'm working right now on trying to do a number of IR photos where the emphasis isn't on their being IR -- just creating beautiful photos where the fact that they are IR is secondary. (IMHO, much of the IR is done because of the novelty of IR, not to create a beautiful piece of artwork.)
-
One question about cropping: What do people tend to do in regards to cropping if the optimal crop is a strange aspect ratio compared to the usual print aspect ratios? I have these visions of having a portfolio comprised of photos of unusual aspect ratios. Should I worry about it or not?
Until recently I was often scotched to the 3:2 format, but sometimes other formats are better.
I think you should not worry aout that.
Thierry
-
pollarda
When I saw these I knew immediately they were IR as I have been shooting it most of the year. I don't think they are overprocessed as IR tends to give this kind of result. I agree about the gimmicky aspect and try to to make the images as near to art as I can. One advantage of IR is that you can shoot midday with good results, another is that you get dramatic skies with little risk of blowing them out. I think that you did a fine job.
Larry
-
One question about cropping: What do people tend to do in regards to cropping if the optimal crop is a strange aspect ratio compared to the usual print aspect ratios? I have these visions of having a portfolio comprised of photos of unusual aspect ratios. Should I worry about it or not?
I try to crop to standard aspect ratios, but will readily go to an unusual one of the image demands it. I cut my own mats so that's not an issue to me.
-
One question about cropping: What do people tend to do in regards to cropping if the optimal crop is a strange aspect ratio compared to the usual print aspect ratios? I have these visions of having a portfolio comprised of photos of unusual aspect ratios. Should I worry about it or not?
Discussion about cropping on this forum Typically "opens a can of worms" as there are a number of schools of thought...
- • one should never need to crop if composition is carefully done prior to releasing the shutter;
- • out of convenience for matting and framing, one should crop to standard aspect ratios;
- • one should have the artistic/conceptual freedom to allow the subject/scene to dictate the cropping and not some pre-defined camera engineering constraints or frame manufacturer;
[•] anywhere in between the three perspectives provided above.
If you want to save money matting or framing, choose 1 or 2. If the photograph is more important than the extra cost or, if will be displayed electronically, choose the third option.
-
Nice - love the shots..
-
pollarda,
Should I worry about it...
No.
-
Very nice
-
They are indeed much better than you gave them credit for. You were very fortunate with the weather and you took excellent advantage of it.
The suggested crop on #2 works well. That little cloud on the top of frame was annoying. I'd crop about the same amount from the top of the vertical one, too.
I agree with luxborealis's practical (as opposed to creative) suggestions on cropping. If you're going to publish them in a book, then all bets are off.