Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Landscape Showcase => Topic started by: Vieri Bottazzini on July 03, 2019, 05:28:41 am
-
The iconic Vestrahorn, in Iceland, on a March sunrise. Hasselblad X1D, Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4 and the always impressive Formatt-Hitech Firecrest Ultra filters.
(https://www.vieribottazzini.com/wp-content/uploads/X1D2_00392.jpg)
Thank you for viewing, best regards
Vieri
-
Another fabulous shot, Vieri!
-
Another fabulous shot, Vieri!
+1.
-
Indeed, impressive, and different from ohter many shots from the same location. I find it curious that either in Iceland, or Asturias, you have a tendency to frame your composition sometimes with around a vertical pivot line, with half of the frame apparently more "empty".
-
Vieri, did you ever explore cinematic aspect ratios for your images? And if so, what were your findings?
For this one I would personally consider 16:9 for example. Normally I am also a sucker for detailed foreground, but since there isn't much of interest here...
What's also interesting (and I mention it here because I believe it is generally interesting, not as critique) is that I would be inclined to tilt this image to visually level, not technically level.
-
Lovely!
-
Another fabulous shot, Vieri!
Than you very much indeed Mike, glad you enjoyed it! :)
+1.
Thank you very much Eric! :)
Indeed, impressive, and different from ohter many shots from the same location. I find it curious that either in Iceland, or Asturias, you have a tendency to frame your composition sometimes with around a vertical pivot line, with half of the frame apparently more "empty".
Thank you very much Paulo, I am glad you enjoyed it! :) Well, I think it depends from what I am getting in the frame / sky in terms of lines, especially, and then shapes - the use of empty space + leading lines allow me to give a sense of motion and direction in my frames that a "tighter", more classic framing wouldn't.
Vieri, did you ever explore cinematic aspect ratios for your images? And if so, what were your findings?
For this one I would personally consider 16:9 for example. Normally I am also a sucker for detailed foreground, but since there isn't much of interest here...
What's also interesting (and I mention it here because I believe it is generally interesting, not as critique) is that I would be inclined to tilt this image to visually level, not technically level.
Thank you for your comment. Yes I do, most of my "horizontal" shots end up in 16:9 lately, probably due to the visual influence of the last TV screen ratios I guess. In this photo, though, I would never go cinematic because it would make me lose all the leading lines (either in the sky, in the reflection, or a bit of both) which I think make the image here.
About the horizon, I never go "visual" level, because of two reasons: 1. that is a very subjective thing, while the horizon being level is objective; 2. While visual level might work in small size presentation such as a computer screen, it looks very "tilted" if you print big (at least to me); keeping the horizon really level never lies nor is subject to interpretation.
Hope this helps!
Lovely!
Thank you very much indeed Matt, glad you enjoyed it! :)
Best regards,
Vieri