Sunken Gardens - Nebraska

All of my editing is done in DPP. I have PS Elements but have no idea how to use it. Suggestions for any improvement either in shooting or editing is appreciated.

beautiful garden Good shot to accommodate most.

Heya,

Just some thoughts:

Good depth of field control and color/contrast.

The sky however doesn't seem to add anything, so I would probably have opted to not compose with much of it in there.

The lower horizontal of the image is distracting to me as the lines of the flower bed lead off the image but are present on the right. Backing up and angling down to get that corner in the image and less sky would have probably been a strong composition perhaps. This also looks like a good opportunity for a horizontal panorama, to get more of those other gardens on the left in and to grab the rest of the fore-garden that leaves the frame to the right. And again, compose with less of that sky so that there are complete gardens if possible. Just some thoughts!

Very best,

Sometimes the best way to learn is by experimenting. (On a copy mind you not the original) You might find Lightroom is more user friendly and capable than PS Elements. I bought an earlier version as I am not a fan of monthly payments.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18083643
Heya,

Just some thoughts:

Good depth of field control and color/contrast.

The sky however doesn't seem to add anything, so I would probably have opted to not compose with much of it in there.

The lower horizontal of the image is distracting to me as the lines of the flower bed lead off the image but are present on the right. Backing up and angling down to get that corner in the image and less sky would have probably been a strong composition perhaps. This also looks like a good opportunity for a horizontal panorama, to get more of those other gardens on the left in and to grab the rest of the fore-garden that leaves the frame to the right. And again, compose with less of that sky so that there are complete gardens if possible. Just some thoughts!

Very best,

I agree with you about the sky. If I scroll it up, it looks better. Why don't I see this when I'm making the photo or editing?

I did purposely not include more on the right side. There was a guy in an alcove in a neon green tshirt eating breakfast and I didn't want him in the photo. Maybe I can try again this weekend and he won't be there.

Pax2You wrote in post #18084006
Sometimes the best way to learn is by experimenting. (On a copy mind you not the original) You might find Lightroom is more user friendly and capable than PS Elements. I bought an earlier version as I am not a fan of monthly payments.[

What does LR do for me that DPP and Elements together don't? The latest DPP has some nice organizing features (collections) and can batch process images.

Abstract leaf image from same location. I have one that's a tighter zoom that doesn't have the drop trails. Would that be a better photo than this one?

How did I do with the diagonal line of the main leaf vein?

The droplets that ran down the right side of the leaf ruined your photo. They do pull the eye like an electromagnet.

Unfortunately I don't find the first image to be in any way interesting. It's not awful. There aren't glaringly obvious compositional gaffs that ruin it. There just isn't anything interesting about it.

I'm afraid I find it to be very documentary (as opposed to artistic) in nature - but with nothing of interest to document. It's a place I don't know and as such have no connection to and the image tells me nothing much about it. If there was someone there dropping litter it would act as a commentary on the environment, if there was people enjoying laying on the grass together it would act as a commentary on life.... as it is it there is no message here to engage me.

Aesthetically it also fails to attract me for the following reasons...
1. The image is documentary because you have shot the view that I would see or my aunt would see if we stood there. You haven't shown me what YOU see.
2. The sky is boring. That means that a large % of the image is boring. While you can't control the weather you can control whether or not you press the shutter. If a large area of the image is boring either recompose or don't take the shot at all - come back at a time when the sky is more interesting.
3. Worse still the light is boring. A good photograph requires good light. The light here appears to be directly overhead or so diffuse that there are no shadows or highlight. Everything looks flat which seldom makes for an interesting photograph.
4. There is no obvious subject to the image that draws my attention. While everything is suitably in focus there isn't anything that stands out as a point of interest to attract the eye.
5. I find the block of plants along the bottom of the image obstructive and unwelcoming. Often, if you get down low and shoot over plants they act as an interesting frame to the scene beyond - like you are peeping over the fence. But when you just have a solid block across the bottom of an image it can inhibit the viewer.
6. Work the scene - walk around the area and see if there are some compositional tricks you can use to capture a more creative view of the park (on a day when the light is better). Are there any lines you could use as leading lines to draw the viewers eye to a certain area/subject. Does the wandering path lead to the gazebo/band stand thing? etc.

What differentiates a documentary vs an artistic photo? I'd like my photos to be artistic (I think).

1. Documentary because it's what anyone/everyone sees standing in that spot of the garden? Versus something from a lower perspective? How is this different, if at all, from a mountain landscape photo (like this one https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=18089059&i​=i50372637).
2. Sky is boring - yep, it is. I should have cropped some of it out as Martin suggested above.
3. Light is boring - yep. In hindsight, it's a learning experience. I am glad I took the time to shoot photos while I was there rather than just abandon the outing. It was probably 8:30am-ish and I was hoping for the good early morning light. I think the light quality is an issue in a lot of my photos - flat flat flat.
4. Is there something I could have focused on to draw attention?
5. I'm willing to try a lower perspective to see if that helps.
6. I did walk around and chose that spot as I wanted the gazebo in the photo. Moving to the left showed the vehicles in the parking lot behind it which I really didn't want in the photo. Perhaps they wouldn't be very obtrusive given I was using a wide angle lens.

I did go back last weekend to try again. Again it was cloudy and overcast so I'm thinking those images are going to look much like this one. I did try to shoot several shots on a tripod to try a panorama but haven't processed them yet.

And thank you for the comments and suggestions.

sued5320 wrote in post #18088910
How did I do with the diagonal line of the main leaf vein?

What are you asking? I don't understand the question. The vein is generally diagonal, but it doesn't go exactly from corner to corner; perhaps you intended it to?

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18090393
Unfortunately I don't find the first image to be in any way interesting. . . .

I'm afraid I find it to be very documentary (as opposed to artistic) in nature - but with nothing of interest to document. . . .

The sky is boring. . . .

Work the scene - walk around the area. . .

Documentary, right. Not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on what the image is for. This image, or a similar one with a few changes, is the kind that could be used to promote the gardens to visitors. It shows what kind of thing is there.

To me, the sky isn't boring. The hilly horizon combines with the paths to make a shape like an hourglass laid on its side.

If I'd been there, I would have considered two other points of view. (1) Get on a ladder and shoot somewhat downward. Of course, I wouldn't have had a ladder. (2) Walk to the left and find out whether the paths to the gazebo can be made more prominent--oops, there are those cars. Well, if I'd really been there, I would have walked all over, maybe found a composition I liked, maybe not.

RE: diagonal line. I'm sure in one/several of my books, I read that diagonal lines guide your eye across the photo creating interest. So that was the basis of my question although I was a bit vague.

Take 2....

In the second photo I posted, how is the composition? Does the diagonal line contribute to a good composition or would a corner to corner diagonal make a better image?

sued5320 wrote in post #18095480
RE: diagonal line. I'm sure in one/several of my books, I read that diagonal lines guide your eye across the photo creating interest. So that was the basis of my question although I was a bit vague.

Take 2....

In the second photo I posted, how is the composition? Does the diagonal line contribute to a good composition or would a corner to corner diagonal make a better image?

A strict geometric diagonal would risk coming off as too deliberate and formulaic. The kinds of composition I like don't result from following rules. I mean, as far as I can tell, they don't (because I don't know what rules, if any, the photographers had in mind). It turns out that a lot of well-composed photos do take advantage of diagonals, but with a more complex composition than just making one line the main feature. As an example, here's a recent one of mine, since I can't post anyone else's:

I agree with Dan. My first impression was, "Wow, lots of opportunities here." I could spend a day exploring for photographic subjects. It's a good shot. But it needs to be printed BIG so that the eye can do the exploring that the photographer chose not to do -- at least in this shot. It could be the title image of a photo essay in the way that says, "This is the place that I got the great shots that you are about to see."

Beautiful!