Hutt River, New Zealand

[kennyclark]

After doing a bit of landscape work, I decided to shoot in portrait. Do you think it works?

Canon 300D, 18-55mm, 1/80sec, f/8, ISO 100.
http://www.thecompass.co.nz/photos/CRW_4334.jpg


Canon 300D, 18-55mm, 1/13sec, f/14, ISO 100.
http://www.thecompass.co.nz/photos/CRW_4350.jpg

[KO_300D]

I think it works great in the second shot - it's the kind of picture you would see in a magazine. Possibly even on the cover.

The first however doesn't really do much for me personally. i think there's too much grass in the front, but the upper part of the image is not strong enough in holding the viewer's eye to be without it. Maybe the other side of the river would provide a better shot - are there mountains as a backdrop there?

[kennyclark]

Looking at it now, you're right, there is too much grass in the first image (almost half the picture!). I could have walked forward to reduce the amount of grass, but didn't because that would have meant losing the yellow flowers from the bottom of the frame.

There are mountains nearby but they would not be in the backdrop if I were to cross the river and shoot from there.

[Mitchkitter]

second picture is cool, but lacks content
first picture as potential, only problem is the grass in the foreground doesnt match the tree's in the back ground, that could be a possitive i suppose.

[Scottes]

The yellow flowers in the first pic are great, but there is too much grass. A couple of steps to the right might have given you more of the hill on the left, too. Just a thought.

The view is great on the second, but I agree about there being little to hold attention. A dramatic cloudy sky might be enough.

[Wazza]

Second shot is nice. :)

Content? Are there trout in the Hutt River? That would be cool to see one jumping over the rocks. If not, you could just superimpose a Canadian bear. :lol: