Nicasio Landscape

Have fun critiquing this image. I have a few points of failure in mind lets see what you come up with. To view correct color use Mozilla Firefox or equivalent color managed browser. I make this choice to get the greatest color range possible in a .jpg print.

Nicasio Reservoir East on a warm and windy summers afternoon

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I just saw this one in Competitions, and first thing I noticed was the grasses on the right. Towards the center they look blurry? Possibly the breeze catching them, not sure.
When I look at it, I think( just me) the 1/4of the right doesn't need to be in the frame.
I really like the texture and rolls of the hills in the back, they alone are worth a photo without the water.

I like the image from the sky downwards if that makes sense. I kinda like the different layers. The bottom centre to the left with water does not have much interest, so maybe a bit of cropping. I know you mentioned about Mozilla colour, but to me on my Internet explorer it could use a tad boost of colour and contrast. Peace

It is back focused with a shallow DOF and from what I am seeing; what I view and what I capture are two different things in terms of focal point. It's a new system. I like the light though and the setting was serene. Fortunately I can reshoot until hell freezes over lucky me it may take that long.

A couple of factors regarding browsers. It appears my IE is not color managed or I don't have a color management extension loaded. I rarely if ever use IE. The colors in unmanaged browsers shift and the soft pastel blue sky is replaced with a gaudy blue/green sky. In terms of contrast I am using a calibrated NEC PA241W monitor and the contrast may be a little lacking as a result of the choices I made or users may be experiencing a lack of contrast due to the viewing hardware. I am not sure. On my monitor I was shooting for a realistic rendering of the scene.

Here is a cropped version which is tighter and likely more effective. Still doesn't solve the focus issue or the interest level.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

jetcode wrote in post #14787086
Here is a cropped version which is tighter and likely more effective. Still doesn't solve the focus issue or the interest level.

Exactly.

Well, it looks like a nice place to go for a hike, but as a view for a landscape photograph, it comes up a bit short. I don't get the sense that this is the right place at the right time. The photo doesn't have a strong point of visual resolution--a clear place for the eye to rest between explorations of the frame. It therefore looks unresolved, like a setting that is still waiting subject.

Unfortunately the world has been thoroughly photographed and unless you are bringing home glaciers lit in waning light every scenic falls short but truth be told this is a gorgeous spot of earth.

jetcode wrote in post #14790380
Unfortunately the world has been thoroughly photographed and unless you are bringing home glaciers lit in waning light every scenic falls short but truth be told this is a gorgeous spot of earth.

If that were true, then landscape photography would be an exercise in futility. I believe that every location has its time and can be 'translated' into a compelling photograph. I have no doubt that this location is worth revisiting. The challenge is always to figure out when to go and how to 'organize' what's available into a fully resolved composition. Sometimes all you need is some dramatic raking light and a nicely isolated rock or tree to anchor the frame...or maybe just a twinkling sun or moon winking at you over a distant ridge...or a particularly prominent peak mingling with a low cloud...the possibilities are endless. You may need to go at a different time of day or different time of year, and you may need to stand in a difference place, but each location has its range of solutions. Figuring them out is the fun part.

"like a setting that is still waiting (for a) subject"

I think this is spot on. Birds, a tree, dramatic clouds, something. But there is no subject or "why" to this photo. Pretty area. Well technically executed, but the subject is missing. This isn't at all diminishing what you have done, but having you raise the bar.

Another thing missing is an element to give it scale. It is a hill... ok. I know that area, so I know how big it is. But an outsider who has no context for this shot is left looking at it going 'ok... a hill... whats so special about it'. Is is big? Far away? People, structures, other objects like birds in flight, something would improve this.

There is a poster here that has inserted birds into her shots. It does two things. It add scale, and motion. That is the last element that could add depth to your shot. Moving water, skies, birds... what ever. It adds life to a shot. That is why sea shore shots are often done with slow shutter speeds - not because it is dark, but it adds motion to the shot.

Hope this helps. It is just my opinion - and you may like it as it... and that is fine.

I was shooting the light and this was the scenic was the closest thing to me. I understand the nature of high impact landscapes. I spent a weekend with Galen Rowell back in the day. I have Charlie Cramer's on the wall, etc, so your words are not unfamiliar. I am not defending the image either. I was just happy to be there with a camera on a tripod. For sure there is plenty of room left for high impact landscapes.

What I do like about it is it reminds of the place I used to go racing often.... the golden hills and the breeze from the bay. One of the guys I used to shoot with back in the day use to say constantly was "there are so many colors because there are so many people... there is a color for everyone". And it is a good point because I worry about us getting too much into formulaic photography.

Its perfectly ok that not everyone likes my stuff... thats how I prefer it. If you are happy, that is all that really matters at the end of the day. And btw - I prefer the first one.

The scenery is beautiful.

I think the one thing I feel is most lacking in this image is a foreground element. My inclination would be to shift the camera down for more foreground and less sky.

Also I feel that these sorts of hills look their best with the sun even lower on the horizon, so the light more dramatically rakes the curved forms.

The cloud formations are cool, but I don't like that they are blown out to white. Speaking of the sky, the jpeg compression looks like it destroyed the sky with artifacts (they're probably everywhere else in the image, but just not as visible in the continuous tone sky area).