Grand Teton

Recently went to Teton and Yellowstone National Park and took a few shots. This is one that I really like but wanted to get some feedback on some of your thoughts. My only thought really is maybe the branches up top make the image distracting. Do they add or subtract from the photo in your opinion. Thanks

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

It's not bad but...

I think this photo could have been better without the trees in the foreground obstructing the view, the structure before the moutains and the blue sky is already a great contrast for distance and size... the sky and grass is also over saturated. this could have also been an incredible black and white shot.

I love it!

The only thing that I might prefer over this perspective would be one in which the house was not so centered. In other words, moving the camera a bit more to the left and then pointing it more to the right would keep the foreground trees right where they are in the scene but would move the cabin and the mountain range slightly more to the left.

Actually, it would be hard to say for sure that it would be any better until you actually tried it.

As a general rule, people should take more shots and depend on the ability to make better judgements when examining the shots later on the screen.

I have to completely agree with Bob here...I don't think it's a bad shot at all but I think it would have been better without the house (log cabin?) so close to the center of the frame. For that matter, the horizon is pretty close to center as well. I do like the trees in the foreground though as to me it adds a sense of depth...I feel like I'm standing at the edge of the woods looking on to this lovely scene.

As Bob suggested, next time just try taking a bunch of shots from a few different angles and see what works best. After all, that's part of the beauty of digital! Shoot lots, print the keepers .

Peace,
Jim

I like it. It could be improved with some of the above comments but none the less its a very nice photo. Well done.

Dave

Thanks for all your replys. Here is one with a slightly different crop, removed tree on left which also placed horizon line more tword bottom third of photo and wooden barn on left third of photo. Let me know if this helps. Thanks

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I like the framing quite a bit. It doesn't look like every other shot I've seen from that scene. But a couple things I would tweak:

1. Get more light on the trees in the foreground.
2. It seems oversaturated with slightly "off" colors..was this processed in Lightroom?

It was adjusted in lightroom. I tried to re edit the shot here. basically just adjusted exposure, wb, fill light, curves, and added a little vibrance and saturation.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

for some reason the shadows on the trees are much more pronounced when posted on here. In lightroom the shadows are much more subtle even after jpeg conversion, maybe compression has something to do with that.

Just thought I would post a before any pp also. maybe then I could get some ideas from you guys in case I am doing the whole PP thing wrong.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I would say that your PP was fine, but you should be aware that the original exposure was underexposed by at least 2 f-stops (based upoin the histogram of this latest posted version). That means that your shadows are blocked up and deadened by 2 stops, which also contributes to a higher noise level being realized after post processing.

It would be worth the time to bone up a bit on the concept of "Expose to the Right" (ETTR), for which there are many references on the web.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5617045
I would say that your PP was fine, but you should be aware that the original exposure was underexposed by at least 2 f-stops (based upoin the histogram of this latest posted version). That means that your shadows are blocked up and deadened by 2 stops, which also contributes to a higher noise level being realized after post processing.

It would be worth the time to bone up a bit on the concept of "Expose to the Right" (ETTR), for which there are many references on the web.

Very interesting read. I always thought that expose to the right was more for film and to the left for digital because shadow detail could always be recovered in PP. Thanks for the input, I have alot more reading to do now.

ben4633 wrote in post #5617510
Very interesting read. I always thought that expose to the right was more for film and to the left for digital because shadow detail could always be recovered in PP. Thanks for the input, I have alot more reading to do now.

Quite the contrary. With film the rule in B & W is to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Don't ask me about slide film, because I never developed any. The reason that it is difficult to recover shadow detail in digital photography in underexposed images is that the noise increases and the highlights become blown out as you set the black point lower.

In digital photography I acknowledge the current wave of enthusiasm for ETTR, but personally I only employ it with extreme caution because of the tendency of many digital cameras to have a very abrupt shoulder at the highlight end of the range. So my advice is that you should use ETTR but only with the realization that you will probably lose a lot of detail in the extreme highlights.

I believe it is fair to say that the proponents of ETTR are using both the noise problem and shadow detail as their primary arguments.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #5622111
Quite the contrary. With film the rule in B & W is to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Don't ask me about slide film, because I never developed any.

So true Bob..This is one of the first things we were taught at college when shooting and processing B/W..The trick is to have your tonal curve to lie as near as possible to 45 degrees..That way your subject contrast is identical to the image's contrast..When I shot colour transparencies I always underexposed by a 1/3rd of a stop or so..I can live with lack of shadow detail but never burned out highlights..

Back to the OP's image..The old house and the mountains have enough interest to stand alone..I'd lose the trees,,they are a distraction..

ben4633 wrote in post #5614483
It was adjusted in lightroom. I tried to re edit the shot here. basically just adjusted exposure, wb, fill light, curves, and added a little vibrance and saturation.

I can tell. Lightroom really messes up natural landscape colors unless you spend a long time. I'd like to see that shot in DPP. Can you post the original RAW, Ben? If you can, just upload it to www.rapidshare .com and PM me the download link. LR is just waaaay off out of the gate.