landscape critique

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 LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/plooyen/1334400​0604/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/plooyen/1334400​3774/

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.

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.

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

Is the subject the rocks or the road?

It seems complex and while nice, its not breathtaking.

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.

demondrive1 wrote in post #16783389
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

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

That's fine

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?

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.

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

Woodworker wrote in post #16779121
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. 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.

pelooyen wrote in post #16788641
That's fine

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.

pelooyen wrote in post #16788641
That's fine

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 !

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.

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.