any help with compisition?

[eastcoasthardcore]

i like doing ir photos but really donot know how to compose landscape shots doing ir did any of these come out alright?
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc36/shinedown7203/CopyofDSC_0043.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc36/shinedown7203/CopyofDSC_0047-1.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc36/shinedown7203/CopyofDSC_0048.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc36/shinedown7203/CopyofDSC_0051.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc36/shinedown7203/CopyofDSC_0052-1.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc36/shinedown7203/CopyofDSC_0055.jpg

[poloman]

I don't like the first....just can't seem to land anywhere.
The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th have real potential. I would like to see less ground and more sky.
I would suggest not centering things so much. :)

[tonydee]

#1: flat look, overexposed areas are harsh to look at, insufficient foreground and even midground interest, enough hole on the bottom left to arrest attention but not enough to satisfy it.

#2 Very nice. Rule of Thirds would suggest putting the horizon a third from the bottom edge, as the grass isn't interesting and the sky is. Would have been best achieved at the time of taking the photo with the camera closer to the ground. Still, you could crop some off the bottom now and get a reasonable result, sans a little foreground detail. The foreground's pretty uninteresting to begin with (can imagine it might look better at full resolution). Still, combined with the top picture, this suggests you should make an active effort to look for foreground objects to put into your shots.

#3: compositionally, much like #2, but less successful. Is the horizon straight? Again, needs foreground interest, and the walkway is a little too central.

#4: a really interesting shot. Bit lop-sided, but that's part of the interest. This time, just a smidge too much foreground.

#5: good... very good capture of the scene... couldn't suggest any change, but - for me - not as interesting subject matter as #4.

#6: doesn't float my boat. It's commands a kind of "what've we got here" perusal, but doesn't satisfy it. Both busy and strangely lacking in satisfying detail.

In summary, I think #2 and #4 are the best... maybe needing a little cropping.

Cheers,

Tony

[wnelson]

I think it maybe helpfull if you try and forget that you are shooting IR. If you pick strong subject matter and compose the shot as you would for a 'normal' photograph, you'll end up with a stronger overall image.

Of course, IR is going to accenuate some features such as the black sky, clouds, foliage etc and you can use these to add another dimention to the image, but getting a good composition is the same regardless of whether the image is IR or not.

If you are particularly interested in landscapes, it would be worth spending the time studing the images of some of the good landscape photographers (or painters) and analysing 'why' the image appeals to yu from a compositional point of view. The try and duplicate this in your own work.

Sorry a bit vague, but hope it helps somewhat.

[chauncey]

I find myself agreeing with wnelson.

In spite of being a beginner at photography, I've learned that; after getting the fundamentals down, composition comes next, before the gimmick stuff.
And in composition, one theme is dwelled on, KISS (keep it simple stupid) and get closer, no... closer yet.

Maybe these images would be more appealing in color, but...

[eastcoasthardcore]

I find myself agreeing with wnelson.

In spite of being a beginner at photography, I've learned that; after getting the fundamentals down, composition comes next, before the gimmick stuff.
And in composition, one theme is dwelled on, KISS (keep it simple stupid) and get closer, no... closer yet.

Maybe these images would be more appealing in color, but...

i have done alot of work in color and find it pretty boring. ir takes skill. any slight move of the camera and the whole picture goes out of focus. ir takes time to set up and figuring out shutter speeds because the camera wont meter w/ an ir filter or focus

[wnelson]

i have done alot of work in color and find it pretty boring. ir takes skill. any slight move of the camera and the whole picture goes out of focus. ir takes time to set up and figuring out shutter speeds because the camera wont meter w/ an ir filter or focus

Don't mis-understand what has been said - I think all will be in agreement with you regards setting up and taking an IR image. The point that is being made is that IR in and by itself doesn't make the image. It sure can contribute something extra (I'm a big IR fan) but you still need to carefully select and compose the subject matter.

This is a couple of images I've been working on tonight (both IR):

http://www.digitalir.co.uk/photos/Sunlight_FC_600F_2.jpg

http://www.digitalir.co.uk/photos/Castle_850_600.jpg

[eastcoasthardcore]

Don't mis-understand what has been said - I think all will be in agreement with you regards setting up and taking an IR image. The point that is being made is that IR in and by itself doesn't make the image. It sure can contribute something extra (I'm a big IR fan) but you still need to carefully select and compose the subject matter.

This is a couple of images I've been working on tonight (both IR):

http://www.digitalir.co.uk/photos/Sunlight_FC_600F_2.jpg

http://www.digitalir.co.uk/photos/Castle_850_600.jpg

what body and filter. i have heard most canon bodies take a rather long shutter speed and low apeture to create one. but this is using a cheap hoya r32

[wnelson]

what body and filter. i have heard most canon bodies take a rather long shutter speed and low apeture to create one. but this is using a cheap hoya r32

I think you mean a Hoya R72 filter? There is nothing wrong with using the R72, it is probably the most popular IR filter in use (can't back that up - just a hunch). Yes, the Canon's do usually require long shutter speeds. This is because of the IR blocking filter they have: You put a IR passing filter (like the R72) on the outside, but you have the blocking filter on the inside of the camera despite the sensor itself being quite sensitive to near IR wavelengths. Hence the long exposure times. The small aperture settings are generally used to compensate for focus errors - although this can be counter-productive at very small settings (f16 and smaller) due to refraction and increased lens hot-spot issues.

The above photo's were taken with modified 10D bodies (where the internal IR blocking filter has been removed and replaced with a IR pass filter). The first one has a 715nm filter (almost the same as the R72) 1/250th sec @ f9.5 The second one has a 850nm filter 1/60th sec @ f8

Wayne