-=5D CLASSIC admirers, assemble! (4)

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10565135
If there some true symmetry then maybe but to many time photographer don't think about waht they are trying to say with the image and a center horizon is usually a cop out or laziness. There is usually one that is more important to the visual statement. For refernce look at the great lanscape photogrpahers or even landscape painters work and see how little they usually place the horizon on the 50% line. Its not to say that it never works but there are reason why they rarely did it. It usually makes for a very static, boring composition and usually one or the other should have more importance to the visual statement.

Cool. Honestly if there was any other way for me to get more interesting shots I would, but I had limited movement/time on those shots plus getting to the spots late did not help either . Case in point the redondo shots... I was on the pier, I got there at 8:00PM, there was barely any sun left, i wanted to shoot from underneath the pier and present the frame with 1/3 of the pier structure facing the sunset but they (security) would not let people go down there. I had only a couple minutes to find another shot and setup.


Btw, I refuse to accept i'm one of those lazy photographers. LOL, If you were in my shoes having the family tag along on a trip and just doing u-turns every time you see a shot opportunity, shooting on the side of the road a few feet away from speeding cars, or getting to your spot late because you had to do other family stuff before your photography stuff you'll understand what I'm saying. Sometimes your best laid plans are not worth anything.

Thanks for the landscape tips!

k-lo wrote in post #10565419
Cool. Honestly if there was any other way for me to get more interesting shots I would, but I had limited movement/time on those shots plus getting to the spots late did not help either . Case in point the redondo shots... I was on the pier, I got there at 8:00PM, there was barely any sun left, i wanted to shoot from underneath the pier and present the frame with 1/3 of the pier structure facing the sunset but they (security) would not let people go down there. I had only a couple minutes to find another shot and setup.


Btw, I refuse to accept i'm one of those lazy photographers. LOL, If you were in my shoes having the family tag along on a trip and just doing u-turns every time you see a shot opportunity, shooting on the side of the road a few feet away from speeding cars, or getting to your spot late because you had to do other family stuff before your photography stuff you'll understand what I'm saying. Sometimes your best laid plans are not worth anything.

Thanks for the landscape tips!

It takes practice and thought. The practice will train your vision so you can shoot as fast and make a really meaningful image that would take the same amount of time to make one thats just average. The first thing you should think about and the first question you should try and visual answer is what attracted you to take that landscape?

In all 3 of those images there is two much sky. To much dead space not helping your visual statement. Theres a huge difference between dead space and negative space. Negative space is essential dead space is just that. If you look at #2 and take a piece of paper and cover it while looking at in on your monitor to just above the lamp on the left side of the frame as you look at the image it makes a much stronger composition and would have taken no longer to shoot than the way it is now.

Playing around last night in my studio.....most people call it a garage...but I call mine the studio....

Harleypugs wrote in post #10565499
Playing around last night in my studio.....most people call it a garage...but I call mine the studio....

Jon ya mean ou actually have time to shoot now....

Cool and nice separation on the blocks which can easily block up (sorry :rolleyes

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10565532
Jon ya mean ou actually have time to shoot now....


Cool and nice separation on the blocks which can easily block up (sorry :rolleyes

From time to time...

k-lo wrote in post #10564394
Redondo Beach

beautiful

That is stunning k-lo!!

Enjoying my new 35L

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

NaKiD EyE wrote in post #10565837
beautiful

thanks

Ingardj wrote in post #10565863
That is stunning k-lo!!

thanks, you won't believe how much dust spot removal i did in LR, f/22 is dramatic and brutal at the same time.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10565483
It takes practice and thought. The practice will train your vision so you can shoot as fast and make a really meaningful image that would take the same amount of time to make one thats just average. The first thing you should think about and the first question you should try and visual answer is what attracted you to take that landscape?

In all 3 of those images there is two much sky. To much dead space not helping your visual statement. Theres a huge difference between dead space and negative space. Negative space is essential dead space is just that. If you look at #2 and take a piece of paper and cover it while looking at in on your monitor to just above the lamp on the left side of the frame as you look at the image it makes a much stronger composition and would have taken no longer to shoot than the way it is now.

Hey Allen! How about this one? Shot this two days ago while up in Big Bear California. I know it still has the horizon but the ground i was shooting at had trash all over the place (LOL)

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10565483
In all 3 of those images there is two much sky

FWIW I don't agree. I can't be sure what these pictures would look like recomposed, but I like them as they are.

k-lo wrote in post #10566443
Hey Allen! How about this one? Shot this two days ago while up in Big Bear California. I know it still has the horizon but the ground i was shooting at had trash all over the place (LOL)

My question back to you is what was the motivation to shoot this? What are you trying to communicate? What are the important elements? A much wiser man than I am and one incredible photographer once taught me and I quote, "either everything in the frame is helping your visual statement or hurting it." Theres never anything just there.

That would include making sure that your subject is placed somewhere in the frame that everything in the frame is supporting the placement.

But what are you trying to say and why did you make the photograph? Is everything in the image supporting that? Remember basic elements of visual language like line, form, shape, color, and things like vanishing point and therefore placement of the horizon all become important elements in trying to communicate your vision.

I would say in this case the sky and the boat are key so maybe to much foreground in this case.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10566689
My question back to you is what was the motivation to shoot this? What are you trying to communicate? What are the important elements? A much wiser man than I am and one incredible photographer once taught me and I quote, "either everything in the frame is helping your visual statement or hurting it." Theres never anything just there.

That would include making sure that your subject is placed somewhere in the frame that everything in the frame is supporting the placement.

But what are you trying to say and why did you make the photograph? Is everything in the image supporting that? Remember basic elements of visual language like line, form, shape, color, and things like vanishing point and therefore placement of the horizon all become important elements in trying to communicate your vision.

awww i don't know man , i don't even have one subject to isolate and talk about, maybe just the whole thing i guess. though i found it has good depth (IMHO). i liked the sky, love the water (we don't have decent bodies of water here in vegas so i'm stoked when i see scenes like this).

but in all honesty to answer your question why i shot the landscape is because there wasn't really anything worth shooting along the way.

k-lo wrote in post #10566768
awww i don't know man , i don't even have one subject to isolate and talk about, maybe just the whole thing i guess. though i found it has good depth (IMHO). i liked the sky, love the water (we don't have decent bodies of water here in vegas so i'm stoked when i see scenes like this).

but in all honesty to answer your question why i shot the landscape is because there wasn't really anything worth shooting along the way.

Well, I think if I were to have shot this, because I do agree some foreground does help, I would have cropped just below the top of your watermark (the bottom of arm on the 5) and included a touch more sky so there were still some reeds in the foreground to retain that depth and let the color in the sky have the real importance. I wouldn't comment at all if I didn't see some real potential in these images being better and what separates good from really good is sometimes paying attention to the little things.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10566689
either everything in the frame is helping your visual statement or hurting it. There's never anything just there

My gut feeling is that I think that's over-simplistic. A good rule-of-thumb perhaps, but not an inflexible infallible rule. Sometime a picture is just to convey a feeling of being there.