Auvergne - Vallee de Chaudefour

[msol]

Hi,

Here are two pictures from the beautiful valley of Chaudefour in France.
* The first is a panorama, composed of four shots in portrait mode.
* The second is a "detail", a rock named "Dent de la Rancune".
I found it difficult to capture the beauty of the valley. Should I focus on details (like the second) or should I focus on the overview (like the first) or do you always need multiple pictures to show a place to other people.
What do you think of these pictures (a) as pictures on there own, and (b) as a means to show the beauty of a place?

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=yf1cmq&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images1.fotopic.net/?iid=yf1cmo&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[Leighow]

MARC

You have a great camera.
I love France and watch Thalassa ever week. But I have never toured the contryside.

FOREWORD
Marc I am an amateur, but I have opinions. I used to post an extensive framework when critiquing images here but I am not sure if the effort was appreciated. So lately I have cut things short and followed a simple framework that I read on the Luminous-Landscape. Here, in a thoughtful essay -- see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/abstracting.shtml -- the author suggests that we all shoot:
- Snapshots .... OK shots,
- Postcards ..... Darn Good shots, or
- Images ........ World Class shots.

What about these pictures on their own " ?
I would rate them as Snapshots. The first if my favourite as the detail in the 2nd shot does notseem to convey any new infomation to me. That is to say, we are not looking at ancient glyphs carved on the rock, or fabulous color, etc.

If that is a dissapointment, it should not be. I bet that you were not "knocked off your feet" when you closed in with camera on this scene or rock! Why should you have been?
- The light seems to be mid day, and
- the sense of depth and perspective is somewhat flattened by the low shooting position.
- there certainly are "third's" here -- but no clear subject in image #1. - - we really only see glacial till (I assume),
- there are few shadows
- there is a lovely range of green but no outstanding color, flora, fauna, or chateau's, etc to tweak out interest.
But for you as a record of a fine warm sunny day, it is a keepsake.

What about these pictures as a way of sowing the beauty of the place ?
Well I don't think that the 2nd shot succeedes.

However, the first panorama is quite nice. Even so, I think that the light, shooting position, subject, and time of day have limited its success. I suspect that you need:
- a higher location,
- timing near dusk or dawn,
- some additional subject element,
- great light and shadow to knock my socks off.
The scene needs a rainbow, or shafts of heavenly light, or -- if a close up -- something that set of a mood and a recation. Don't forget, I walk through gorgeous scenery every day. But that is not enough.

CLOSE
Marc that is what I think. In fact I just looked at a wine site and its "photos of vineyards, etc. Frankly that site's images did not at all convey the magic of a tasting tour or the promise of a great vintage.
Your landscape images show great promise, especially the para-glider. You just need to discouver nature at one of its more magical moments.

[PhotosGuy]

Nice pics, but no "Decisive Moment”. Ansel Adams used to wait hours for just the right time to take the pic. Most people today won’t, but the “Standard” is still there, no?

Spend a minute looking at one of his pics. Then take a minute to look at one of these. Now, which ones make you want to look at them some more?

Don’t give up. But learn to “See” the pic before you take it & visualize the end result. And yeah, I throw a lot of mine out, too!
:wink: