Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Heinz on February 17, 2013, 04:32:03 am
-
Does this image need more punch/contrast?
-
What direction is the light source coming from? If it is in the far distance then possibly the dark areas need darkening to make it more "believable". I would clone the light area in the bottom left because my eye is attracted to it. Possibly a little more sharpening. This is of course my opinion and there will be others.
-
Does this image need more punch/contrast?
For my taste it needs a few solid blacks.
The rock on the lower left is really too high and should be taken down in order for people to move into the center of the photograph.
This is a very interesting subject, although I can't quite decode why something feels off here in that plant on the right?
-
Hello Heinz- I missed this one, on my side the contrast seems fine. I like this. One of those that one can look at for some time, would really like to see it bigger though.
-
This is the best composition/viewpoint I have seen from this location.
I really like the idea of the tree on the right, I don't know how many shots I have taken here and have not thought about including that! I have always been tempted towards the bottom where all the rocks are strewn. I have also only been there in the late afternoon and the sun is a swine!
Damn! I have to go back there and look at it again with new eyes!
William
-
This is my best effort.
-
The original version has the kind of mushy midtone values that remind me of an old textbook photo reproduction, circa 1950.
It's the kind of effect one would get if you cranked up Photoshop's Midtone Contrast slider in Shadows/Highlights a little too much.
-
This is my best effort.
I did not see this photo until you pointed it out. I had seen the one above.
There's an immediate emotional power to it. More than that, it has a lot of content too, making it interesting to go up and down the ridges and gullies, and look way out into a very believable distance. There's a beautiful sense of space in about 4 layers from front to back, which all retains the proper weight and doesn't simply diffuse into nothingness or dense atmospheric photo fog.
The vantage point is suggestive of a dangerous location. One senses they are on the precipice here. (One can also think they are suspended somehow, which is a slight downside to this approach. ) The rock peaks penetrate up through the horizon and right into the sky giving more feeling of height and majesty.
There's a lot of grit and honesty in here. I can reach out and feel the stone directly. The detail is rich, and the stack of rocks on the right feels shaky and uncertain. This vantage point feels like we might be walking a ledge there or traversing the right hand wall.
The sky feels a bit over-baked to me. It's on the verge of taking over the whole picture. I wold have to see this on print to know if this is a real effect or jjust the screen. But here, it is too bright and dominant.
What is missing for me is more dramatic light on the rock and in the canyon. Something big and dramatic. There's a flatness in the whole scene that drains it of drama (mystery). Where are the deep shadows that make all those impossible shapes that create a second subliminal layer over the first? This lighting is too frank for this scene, a little too clinical, like an architectural blueprint. I would prefer that some portions remained impenetrable to immediate inspection. Something to put my imagination to work a little harder. Some large dark element creating uncertainty and tension. Not there.
I like the expansive feel of the picture and the expressiveness of it. It says a lot about what the place is.
-
Firstly, Heinz, sorry for hijacking the thread. I posted the picture to illustrate my original comment and then asked Redwoodguy to have a look at it as an afterthought!
Red, I think you have it pretty "spot-on"! Thank you for the time and effort. A few questions: the sky. I take your point, in fact, I have already tried to "unbake" it. (Graduated filter, down on Exposure and all the way down on "Clarity")
The lack dramatic light on the canyon. Are you saying "bad luck that the light was not great that day" or "try and jack it up in Photoshop"?
Sorry again Heinz!
William
-
I don't think the material on the right edge of the frame (in your picture, W. Walker) is particularly fortuitous. The large rock in the foreground, especially, feels neither in nor out, it feels like a chopped-off accident, to me.
The sky might be better if the highlights weren't so blown out, and I assume they look better in anything closer to an original?
It's nice, but not as nice as the original poster's ;)
-
Firstly, Heinz, sorry for hijacking the thread. I posted the picture to illustrate my original comment and then asked Redwoodguy to have a look at it as an afterthought!
Red, I think you have it pretty "spot-on"! Thank you for the time and effort. A few questions: the sky. I take your point, in fact, I have already tried to "unbake" it. (Graduated filter, down on Exposure and all the way down on "Clarity")
The lack dramatic light on the canyon. Are you saying "bad luck that the light was not great that day" or "try and jack it up in Photoshop"?
Sorry again Heinz!
William
Yes, bad luck. You get what you can. There are always compromises from the ideal. I don't know that spot, so I don't know what kind of light happens there.
-
This is my best effort.
It's great shot, in my opinion, and "rocks" is a subject that I often try to capture. The way that I read your picture, I start at the light gray lower right corner, glance at the rocks at the left and settle on the very bright sky at the horizon. To make viewers settle on the rocks, I would darken the rocks at right side and the sky and plains at the horizon, and lighten the line of rocks going through the middle of the picture. I might even blur the ridge immediately behind the rocks to isolate and bring out the rocks further down the line.
Otherwise, it is well composed.
Roger
-
Heinz,
My apology if I hijacked your thread.
-
These are my comments on Heinz's photograph (the one posted at the start of the thread):
I assume the picture is Heinz's response to the rocks running horizontally through the image, starting at the left.
As to the composition, I feel that the image is divided 50:50 at the horizon and this gives less prominence to the assumed subject and too much prominence to the sky and the bush at the right. I guess Heinz couldn't tilt or shift his camera to get more of the area below the rocks because that area was closed off by the rocks in the foreground to the left and right. In that case, I would have changed position. I would in any event, try to avoid including the bright rock at the right edge by turning the camera to the left, which would have included more of the subject.
I appreciate the desire to get something interesting in the foreground
Moving the point of view might mean losing the bush at the right but, if the rocks are the subject, the bush is too dominant and distracting. If the bush is the reason for the photo, or part of the reason, I would alter my comments and suggest Heinz crops out the right half of the bush.
I appreciate that none of what I suggested about composisiton may be possible for one reason or another!
As to the tones, my eyes scan the picture starting at the bright rocks at lower left, flick between bright rocks in the middle distant just left of centre and the highlights in the rocks below the bush and then wander around the highlights in the sky. To get viewers to settle on the assumed subject, I would darken all the distracting areas and try to lighten up the subject in comparison.
To me the image is very grainy and I am not sure whether the subject is sharp. I do not understand the need for grain in static subjects and I consider it stops the rocks from looking "crisp" as you would normally expect them.,
In conclusion, the vista seems to present a great opportunity and I would go back and take more shots. Sorry, Heinz.
Roger
-
Firstly, Heinz, sorry for hijacking the thread. I posted the picture to illustrate my original comment and then asked Redwoodguy to have a look at it as an afterthought!
The former is ok, the latter is not.
If you bother to post it in a separate thread, I will then comment.
-
Yes, bad luck. You get what you can. There are always compromises from the ideal. I don't know that spot, so I don't know what kind of light happens there.
This is always an important point. Painters get to make their own luck, photographers don't. Luck really does play a very important role in photography. You can't for example simply sit on your duff and make good photographs. You have to venture off somewhere, and you rely on things out of your control to a great extent. I've stood in front of many possible interesting subjects and cursed the light. As I am sure everyone has. The universe is in motion - - we must stop it for just a moment, but the question is always, which moment?
The success rate in photography isn't like baseball. No one bats .335. More like .002. Getting a great photograph (by any standard) is affected by too much chance, you could say. We have to allow for that when viewing our everyday work. That's why I use this phrase a lot "Good photographic idea there." It means, you had the right moment, but the planets weren't totally lined up for you. That's not really a failing of the photographer, even if it is a "long foul ball" photographically. A big swing and a miss, to continue my lame baseball metaphor, is a different story. I like the Walker photograph of these rocks. It is not a strike, it is a long foul ball. I can see all the intention and control, and I can see the bad luck. This is not an exhibition here, it is a discussion of our general works which will include the less than perfect.
A lot of people are taking personal offense at my comments on their photos. They feel insulted, slighted, not praised, and so on. All I can say is that I am trying my hardest to keep it about the photograph and let it speak as it will for itself.
-
Thank you for the input guy's,
About the HI-Jacking of the thread, No Worries. Living in South Africa, one is used to being Hi-Jacked every other day ;D
The Valley of desolation has been Photographed a million times at least, by thousands of photographers, and all seem to get very similar images. This image was taken late in the afternoon and was shot on an ISO of 800, which on my 30D starts to grain. There was a fair breeze blowing and to get the tree sharp, I needed a high ISO to give me shutter speed.
Regarding the comp, I wanted something different to the normal 'Valley Of Desolation' Pic's that we see, that's why I placed the tree in such a strong position. I want people to look at the image and see the tree, and then only see the spire's and realise the location is the Valley of Desolation.
Did I achieve this...I don't know, but I thought it was lacking something.
Anyway thanks for looking and for the pointers.
Heinz
-
Hmm .....I have read the posts of RedwoodGuy and rogernxz and I find it rather remarkable that two posters in the same thread have thoughts and a writing style that is very similar. Both like to go into fine detail and explain their every thought at length. The coincidence is remarkable. If I am wrong to draw attention to this and there isn't a connection between the two then I am apologising to the two posters. Now where is the dictionary so I can find the definition of alter ego? ;)
-
Hmm .....I have read the posts of RedwoodGuy and rogernxz and I find it rather remarkable that two posters in the same thread have thoughts and a writing style that is very similar. Both like to go into fine detail and explain their every thought at length. The coincidence is remarkable. If I am wrong to draw attention to this and there isn't a connection between the two then I am apologising to the two posters. Now where is the dictionary so I can find the definition of alter ego? ;)
PC Stamper - Back on duty! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hmm .....I have read the posts of RedwoodGuy and rogernxz and I find it rather remarkable that two posters in the same thread have thoughts and a writing style that is very similar. Both like to go into fine detail and explain their every thought at length. The coincidence is remarkable. If I am wrong to draw attention to this and there isn't a connection between the two then I am apologising to the two posters. Now where is the dictionary so I can find the definition of alter ego? ;)
+1
Now, Stamper, I am sure you will then appreciate the latest series of ads for Discover card. Not sure if they air it in UK, but here is a YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHsyyFi1Ys
;)
-
Hmm ...alter ego? ;)
I take the references to "alter egos" to suggest RG and I are the one and same person. Let me know if I am wrong.
I proceed on my assumption.
This suggestion is typical of what goes on in this forum. Instead of sticking to critiques of images, some people persist in going to the person behind the postings they have issue with. In various ways, these people try to discredit the poster or their postings.
Let's assume that RG and I are the same person. What is the problem with that? Why not just stick to commenting on the postings from all two of us? Why look for reds under the beds?
Please stay on topic—critiquing and submitting photos.
For the record, I am not Redwood Guy. I live in Wellington, New Zealand. I would give you my name but I don't think that is fair because it may put pressure on RG to give his name to prove he is not me and he may have strong reasons for not doing so.
Roger
-
I would give you my name but I don't think that is fair because it may put pressure on RG to give his name to prove he is not me and he may have strong reasons for not doing so.
A while back Michael, at whose website we are all guests, asked all members to use their real names instead of obscure "handles." Most of us who were around at that time did change to using our full names. I personally think Michael's request was highly appropriate.
-
Yes, a few months ago Michael said “we prefer real names here, not pseudonyms.” I’m not aware of any other such comments by him. Not sure if anything has been added to the registration process, but I’m not aware of anything. It seems like a lot of people are using their real names, but a lot still don’t. Personally I don’t care whether someone uses their real name or a pseudonym, but it’s up to Michael. Unless and until he makes some form of official policy, I’d say people should be able to do as they please, and shouldn’t be criticized if they don’t use their full names.
-
... For the record, I am not Redwood Guy. I live in Wellington, New Zealand. I would give you my name but I don't think that is fair..
Ah, Mr. Roger Hayman, you forgot this is the Internet era, and everything is just a few clicks away ;)
-
And you buggers accuse me of hijacking a thread! ;)
i.e. Inspector Blagojevic and PC Stamper.
-
Ah, Mr. Roger Hayman, you forgot this is the Internet era, and everything is just a few clicks away ;)
This is called cyberstalking. Ref: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/10/top-3-signs-you-are-an-online-stalker/ and here: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx
In all 50 states this is against the law, as it well should be. I am not speaking for Roger, but because of your suspicious, peculiar and extremely odd behavior, I am giving you this public declaration that you do NOT have my permission to release any information about me on this forum, including my name, or address, or any other such information.
Your snide threat that "everything is a few clicks away" is not even remotely humorous to me in this age of cyberstalking, cybercrime and worse.
I think you have exceeded the bounds of normal behavior on any forum I know of.
-
And you buggers accuse me of hijacking a thread! ;)
i.e. Inspector Blagojevic and PC Stamper.
I will give you credit for being the first. :)
-
Ah, Mr. Roger Hayman, you forgot this is the Internet era, and everything is just a few clicks away ;)
Well done, Slobodan! I was never into hiding my identity. I joined some years ago and used my standard forum login. I had never appreciated that I could set up a signature with my name, as I see others have done.
When I find out how to do this, I will set up a signature with my name.
Roger Hayman
-
. . . he may have strong reasons for not doing so.
No question about that.
-
Well done, Slobodan! I was never into hiding my identity. I joined some years ago and used my standard forum login. I had never appreciated that I could set up a signature with my name, as I see others have done.
When I find out how to do this, I will set up a signature with my name.
Roger Hayman
Go to profile, Account Settings. I just did it and it's pretty simple.
-
For the record, I am not Redwood Guy. I live in Wellington, New Zealand. I would give you my name but I don't think that is fair because it may put pressure on RG to give his name to prove he is not me and he may have strong reasons for not doing so.
So evidently you're saying there's something you and/or RG want to hide, and therefore you're both afraid to use your real names.
-
This is called cyberstalking. Ref: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/10/top-3-signs-you-are-an-online-stalker/ and here: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx
In all 50 states this is against the law, as it well should be. I am not speaking for Roger, but because of your suspicious, peculiar and extremely odd behavior, I am giving you this public declaration that you do NOT have my permission to release any information about me on this forum, including my name, or address, or any other such information.
Your snide threat that "everything is a few clicks away" is not even remotely humorous to me in this age of cyberstalking, cybercrime and worse.
I think you have exceeded the bounds of normal behavior on any forum I know of.
Drivel. He's looked up someone's name, no doubt using that tool of the oppressor, Google, and made a comment which is accurate (you may dislike its accuracy, but that's another matter). You do your own case no good by citing facile articles such as the first in support, although I suppose anything said by "psychologist and addiction expert Seth Meyers" should be given all the attention it's worth.
Your "public declaration" is wholly meaningless.
Jeremy
-
By the very same statutes you cited, no one is guilty of cyberstalking as it is described in said statues.
Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.
Cyberharassment. Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it may generally be defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharrassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.
Just from the reading of each post, no one has posted any threats to another's safety or well being or by tormenting said individual. You may not like your personal information being researched, but I will suspect Facebook, Google and yahoo have more information about you than your mother.
-
Hey Guy's
I think that we drifted ever so slighty from the topic.
Should there be any more input regarding the image, please feel free to crit. I have broad shoulders and can take a crit, I will not sulk nor will I throw my toy's out my cot.
Should anyone take the time to look at any image that I post, and still make a comment, whether it is only a few words or a whole page, then I will take the time to read the reply and value the input given.
Thanks,
Heinz
-
By the very same statutes you cited, no one is guilty of cyberstalking as it is described in said statues.
Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.
Cyberharassment. Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it may generally be defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharrassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.
Just from the reading of each post, no one has posted any threats to another's safety or well being or by tormenting said individual. You may not like your personal information being researched, but I will suspect Facebook, Google and yahoo have more information about you than your mother.
Are you speaking on behalf of the forum management?
-
Sorry, I did not comment earlier but pretty much anything I could add had already been covered. I would, on a second look, probably boost the midtone contrast on the bush to offset some of the "darker" areas on the left side but also to help direct the eye down the canyon. As it sits, it tends to blend in too much with the sky.
-
Sorry, Heinz!
I actually have every intention to comment on your image, it's just that this flurry of posts an PMs I've been experiencing as of lately caused me to respond rather impulsively.
-
RG, nope...just citing your cites, excitedly.
-
RG, nope...just citing your cites, excitedly.
I was hoping not, since you seem to know less about cyberstalking than you know about photography, and yet as usual, sounding so sure of yourself.
-
Drivel. He's looked up someone's name, no doubt using that tool of the oppressor, Google, and made a comment which is accurate (you may dislike its accuracy, but that's another matter). You do your own case no good by citing facile articles such as the first in support, although I suppose anything said by "psychologist and addiction expert Seth Meyers" should be given all the attention it's worth.
Your "public declaration" is wholly meaningless.
Jeremy
Do you do any photography there Higgins, or is this whole of your talent -- houseman?
-
Then, why did you post the statues if they aren't representative of cyberstaking...I am merely repeating your own post. ? eh?
-
Then, why did you post the statues if they aren't representative of cyberstaking...I am merely repeating your own post. ? eh?
Didn't we already determine that you're not speaking for the house, here?
-
Didn't we already determine that you're not speaking for the house, here?
If "the house, here" would consider it cyberxxx, they wouldn't include "Show the last posts of this person."
-
Didn't we already determine that you're not speaking for the house, here?
We who?
-
Guys, please feel free to continue to flame - elsewhere.