Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 22 Mar 2014 (Saturday) 22:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

landscape critique

 
pelooyen
Goldmember
Avatar
2,940 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
     
Mar 22, 2014 22:27 |  #1

Took this shot late in the afternoon as a storm rolled in (I was really hoping for a better sky) just before sunset

You landscapers out there, I would love to know
a. thoughts on composition
b. thoughts on processing (even if composition has issues
c. Whether colour or B&W and why

Thanks in advance


IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7449/13344000604_6a148b6d06_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/plooyen/1334400​0604/  (external link)
cliff drive (external link) by www.stonemeadow.com.au (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7308/13344003774_df43aca5ec_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/plooyen/1334400​3774/  (external link)
cliff drive (external link) by www.stonemeadow.com.au (external link), on Flickr

cheers, Paul
---------------
Flickr (external link) | My Website (external link) | Like me on Facebook (external link)
6D | 5Dc | 17-40mm L | 28-135mm IS USM | 70-200L f4 | 100mm f2.8 macro USM | MPE65 | MT-24EX | 580EX | Kenko extension tubes | 1.4x TC
| couple of umbrellas and softbox and other lighting stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Spike44
Goldmember
2,155 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2007
     
Mar 22, 2014 22:44 |  #2

Composition is fine - you don't want to get any lower....try to keep the trees and the large rock in the frame.
The colours look a bit flat to me...which in turn can be seen in the B&W - not enough tonal range.
I would return when the sky/light is better (clear with some clouds and AM or golden hour). The stones will benefit from better lighting by showing their textures.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 23, 2014 06:58 |  #3

I'm only viewing on my lappy but the original looks rather flat to me and the mono one looks dreadful.

The image is let down by your basic technique. The answer for you is to practise, practise and practise again.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pelooyen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,940 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
     
Mar 23, 2014 15:39 |  #4

Thanks guys
I wasn't a big fan of the shot actually, but couldn't put my finger on it on what it was I didn't like

You helped me in answering that


cheers, Paul
---------------
Flickr (external link) | My Website (external link) | Like me on Facebook (external link)
6D | 5Dc | 17-40mm L | 28-135mm IS USM | 70-200L f4 | 100mm f2.8 macro USM | MPE65 | MT-24EX | 580EX | Kenko extension tubes | 1.4x TC
| couple of umbrellas and softbox and other lighting stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lundgrenj
Senior Member
363 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Utah
     
Mar 24, 2014 17:23 |  #5

Is the subject the rocks or the road?

It seems complex and while nice, its not breathtaking.


Canon 7D, 6D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
demondrive1
Member
Avatar
141 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2013
     
Mar 24, 2014 17:44 as a reply to  @ lundgrenj's post |  #6

I would not go as far to say that the mono one is dreadfull like woodworker said. I would say that maybe your concentrating too much on trying to have a foreground interest. In this case the rock drowns out the whole image. The mono is far from dreadfull. Bring blacks down.it would give depth with touching contrast. I never add contrast to a black and white image.


Canon 5D Mark iii.Canon 5D Mark ii ,.Ef 24-70 ii.Canon 50mm f 1.2,Sigma 12-24mm and a few speedlights..
http://www.colincoller​anphotographer.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 26, 2014 14:17 |  #7

demondrive1 wrote in post #16783389 (external link)
I would not go as far to say that the mono one is dreadfull like woodworker said.

I'm sorry for being unnecessarily harsh but the colour version is much, much better :)


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pelooyen
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,940 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
     
Mar 26, 2014 16:46 |  #8

Woodworker wrote in post #16788302 (external link)
I'm sorry for being unnecessarily harsh but the colour version is much, much better :)

That's fine ;-)a

Two things I pick up from the critiques
1. Watch for competing subjects (bridge vs rock)
2. Watch tonal range

I raise the question..
What circumstances drives you to consider B&W conversion?


cheers, Paul
---------------
Flickr (external link) | My Website (external link) | Like me on Facebook (external link)
6D | 5Dc | 17-40mm L | 28-135mm IS USM | 70-200L f4 | 100mm f2.8 macro USM | MPE65 | MT-24EX | 580EX | Kenko extension tubes | 1.4x TC
| couple of umbrellas and softbox and other lighting stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
patrick ­ j
Goldmember
1,571 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 2735
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Denver
     
Mar 28, 2014 08:27 as a reply to  @ pelooyen's post |  #9

Foregrounds are important, but I think the rock is too prominent. If it was possible, you could pull back a bit and keep the rock there but just smaller. Maybe a bit more sky above the trees in right side above that hill.

I'm not a black and white person, but I thought that version looked ok. I also think that if a person is going to critique a photo, they should say - That looks dreadful BECAUSE, and not stop after the word dreadful, that really doesn't guide a person.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Qbx
Goldmember
3,959 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 490
Joined Dec 2010
     
Mar 28, 2014 09:46 |  #10

If you can get back there I'd suggest working on the rock itself and the one behind it - forget the bridge.


-- Image Editing OK --

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 29, 2014 17:25 |  #11

Woodworker wrote in post #16779121 (external link)
I'm only viewing on my lappy but the original looks rather flat to me and the mono one looks dreadful.

The image is let down by your basic technique. The answer for you is to practise, practise and practise again.

Such good helpful advice, not. :rolleyes: And it's practice.

There is nothing wrong with a very natural looking image. Every image does not need the contrast and saturation pushed until it hurts the eyes!

For me I rarely like a roadway to be part of a landscape image and this is no different. The colors and contrast look fine just not an interesting subject for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Mar 30, 2014 02:03 |  #12

pelooyen wrote in post #16788641 (external link)
That's fine ;-)a

Two things I pick up from the critiques
1. Watch for competing subjects (bridge vs rock)
2. Watch tonal range

I raise the question..
What circumstances drives you to consider B&W conversion?


Okay...alternate view on this and I'm probably WAY off base.

I don't even see this as the bridge competing with the rocks. Someone earlier asked if this was about the bridge or the rocks, and I don't think it's about either. I think this is about the bridge AND the rocks.

People have been mentioning that the rocks in the foreground are too prominent. I guess maybe they're a LITTLE too prominent, but I actually like that the foreground rocks are very prominent. Why? Because I think that that makes them big and imposing, like mountains. So we've got mountains in the foreground, mountains in the background. The foreground sort of echoes that imposing prominent rocky landscape that's present in the background, and then we have the road dividing the two. I don't even see it as a road, I see it as a line breaking up the landscape into distinct parts. That being a landscape that is otherwise continuous. But to put it simply, this is ALL natural except for the road, the rocks in the foreground echo the mountains in the distance. The presence of the road serves to isolate the similar foreground from the similar background, that clean line in the middle of that rocky harsh landscape sort of separates nature from itself and divides nature into clean distinct parts. I think that's an interesting idea.

However, it is all a little bit flat. As others have commented, the lighting just makes things sort of merge together. At least the color version has color to provide some separation, but the values in the b&w version just really largely melt together without that color separation. I would like to see this same image made in better lighting conditions. I'd like to see this same shot, except in conditions when the lighting wasn't so flat and the colors were more vibrant and the shadows were deeper. I'm not saying that that would make the image better, that would just be speculating. But I would like to see a comparison.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,327 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8335
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Mar 30, 2014 13:38 as a reply to  @ Clean Gene's post |  #13

pelooyen wrote in post #16788641 (external link)
That's fine ;-)a

Two things I pick up from the critiques
1. Watch for competing subjects (bridge vs rock)
2. Watch tonal range

I raise the question..
What circumstances drives you to consider B&W conversion?

Its not about competing subjects, the boulders in the foreground are just much to large. Either another angle from a higher perspective, further back, or whatever, to allow the boulders to appear to be smaller, or just walk away from the shot.

With all that said, you had a good eye on a potential landscape shot, if only for those enormous boulders.

Sorry clean gene, but I totally disagree with you, regarding the boulders, or as you call them, rocks, but that's all right, as you probably disagree with me. That's why photography is so personally subjective.
Ever see a TV show where police arrive at a crime scene, and interview 5 eyewitnesses, all with a different perspective. Humanly natural !


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
revluke
Senior Member
438 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
Apr 04, 2014 00:29 |  #14

For me it's totally a crop thing, a quick run like this look so much more pleasing to me. Bring the bottom right corner of frame to lower mid boulder and you've got a nice composition.


5dIII | 70d | Rokinon 14 | 16-35 f4 IS | 40 2.8 | s50A | 70-200 2.8 IS II | 100 f2 | s120-300S | sigma 2x | 600EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imagonman
Hatchling
5 posts
Joined Dec 2013
Location: NC
     
Apr 06, 2014 22:31 as a reply to  @ revluke's post |  #15

For me it's simple. The horizon, real & implied by left bridge is almost dead center vertically.
Large foreground boulder, again almost dead center across the horizonal.
No real center of interest or anything leading my eye thru the composition. My eye just wanders searching for something & never finding rest.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,276 views & 0 likes for this thread
landscape critique
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mhpfister
921 guests, 396 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.