Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Snapshot Near Drumheller  (Read 1356 times)
Stecyk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« on: August 30, 2010, 10:15:49 PM »
ReplyReply


This snapshot was taken near Drumheller, Alberta, Canada.  This area is known as the Badlands and is famous for the dinosaur skeletons that it contains.  In Drumheller is the world famous Royal Tyrrell Museum, a terrific museum showcasing many of the great dinosaurs from the area.

Please critique my snapshot.  I am most interested in the framing/cropping decisions.  In looking at the photograph now, I would say I shot have shot from closer to the ground.  Also, the rock should have been closer to the lower 1/3rd intersection?  And I suspect that I have wasted space on the right hand side?  I would appreciate any advice or guidance.

I tried to show a larger image, 1024 pixels wide, using Flickr.  From looking at my post, I see that the forum restricts the width of the photograph. I am not sure of the proper decorum for attaching or including files.  Any guidance on this matter too is appreciated.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2010, 10:54:47 PM by Stecyk » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2010, 11:03:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, there is some extra on the bottom and right and the crayola sky isn't that great, but the big issue I have is that the very center of the image is really dark and it kind of splits the image.  It certainly separates the rock from the hills.  The near(ish) is good, the far is good but the middle is a muddled.

Love the rock.  Love the light on the hills.  Love all the details in the hills.
Logged
Stecyk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2010, 11:20:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, there is some extra on the bottom and right and the crayola sky isn't that great, but the big issue I have is that the very center of the image is really dark and it kind of splits the image.  It certainly separates the rock from the hills.  The near(ish) is good, the far is good but the middle is a muddled.

Love the rock.  Love the light on the hills.  Love all the details in the hills.
First, thank you for commenting.  I have never given serious thought or consideration to landscapes.  So I appreciate all commentary.

1) Extra at the bottom and right.  I am assuming that the foreground is wasted space and need not be there?  If so, I should have gotten closer to the rock?  My own quick thought is that I should have gotten closer to the ground to take the shot.  The grasses would have enjoyed more prominence then.  I thought camera left had extra space, not camera right.  Interesting.

2) Crayola sky.  The sky was a bland blue.  After I got through my curves and channel manipulations, this is what I ended up with.  I was focused on the mountain itself, trying to make it colorful and alive.  The sky was a byproduct of the mountain changes.

3) Dark area.  Agreed it is dark.  I didn't want to lighten too much for fear that it wouldn't look proper.  The best answer is to have shot at a different time of day.  

Again, thank you.  I am wanting to determine what more discerning or descriminating photographers look for when composing and shooting landscapes.
Logged
Stecyk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2010, 09:45:11 AM »
ReplyReply

No further comments from anyone? 

Surely there's more room for improvement.
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2010, 08:46:14 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have trouble with color shifts and saturation when working in
photoshop, you can try to use your adjustment layers
(levels, curves, even b/w conversion) in luminance blend mode,
so they won't affect colors too much.
And an attempt to B/W convert is often worth a try.
Concerning cropping I'd cut away everything below that rock and a bit from the right side as well.
Logged

Stecyk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2010, 09:12:04 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have trouble with color shifts and saturation when working in
photoshop, you can try to use your adjustment layers
(levels, curves, even b/w conversion) in luminance blend mode,
so they won't affect colors too much.

Colors were deliberate. In fact, used a special technique to drive out more color than is normally present, even with "color shifts."  I love color.

And an attempt to B/W convert is often worth a try.
Concerning cropping I'd cut away everything below that rock and a bit from the right side as well.

Thank you for your comment on cropping.

I appreciate that you took the time and effort to respond.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2010, 11:10:12 AM »
ReplyReply

T/S or a view camera would have let you get the fore ground and background sharper, and made the mountain look higher by shifting instead of tilting up.

The dark area in the middle is not too bad on my monitor, but MF or HDR are possible solutions (I use MF, but usually bracket just in case I might need to HDR).

The way the rock overlaps the shadow area helps give you separation of the rock from background...

Using a longer focal length (or cropping) would have included less horizon, and that might have helped.

This type of landscape needs res, but we cannot tell how much detail there is in the full-res file.

Could you have moved way to the right, so that the rock was on the left third, and you had less area in shadow?

You could cheat and photograph the rock separately and place it afterwords!

If you do not have movements, a lower view point would make it more difficult to get it all in focus, and the sand between the rock and the foreground foliage helps the appreciation of depth.

Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Stecyk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2010, 11:44:33 AM »
ReplyReply

T/S or a view camera would have let you get the fore ground and background sharper, and made the mountain look higher by shifting instead of tilting up.
Although I am aware of T/S lenses, I have never used them and am unfamiliar with them.  My quick understanding is that they shift the plane of focus?  If true, which plane would you capture?  That is, would the lens be shifted downward?

The dark area in the middle is not too bad on my monitor, but MF or HDR are possible solutions (I use MF, but usually bracket just in case I might need to HDR).
The darks don't bother me as their is still lots of detail in the main shadow. Others have commented, so it is noticable and objectionable to some.  I am not sure what MF represents.  As far as HDR, I use my own version of Margulis's techniques where he multiplies and uses masks to bring bright and dark closer together as well as providing a color boost.

The way the rock overlaps the shadow area helps give you separation of the rock from background...
Agreed.

Using a longer focal length (or cropping) would have included less horizon, and that might have helped.

This type of landscape needs res, but we cannot tell how much detail there is in the full-res file.
I tried showing a larger file here, but the forum seems to force display to 800 px. I had link to 1024 px image from my Flickr account.  To my eye, the resolution is good.  It was shot with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens.

Could you have moved way to the right, so that the rock was on the left third, and you had less area in shadow?
Perhaps, however, I don't think the view then would not have been as interesting.  

You could cheat and photograph the rock separately and place it afterwords!
Nah, it wasn't that important.

If you do not have movements, a lower view point would make it more difficult to get it all in focus, and the sand between the rock and the foreground foliage helps the appreciation of depth.
Ah, that's interesting. So you are suggesting ~not~ to get lower to the ground when taking the photograph because of increased difficulty with focus.  

I was thinking that a shot taken from normal standing height makes the photograph somewhat boring.  Even if you shot from lower down with the foreground out of focus, as long as the main subject was strongly in focus, that would lead to a stronger photograph.  The out-of-focus would provide a sense of depth?

I appreciate your comments.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 11:46:52 AM by Stecyk » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2010, 12:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Although I am aware of T/S lenses, I have never used them and am unfamiliar with them.  My quick understanding is that they shift the plane of focus?  If true, which plane would you capture?  That is, would the lens be shifted downward?
T/S lenses Tilt and Shift...

The shift lets you keep the camera back vertical... this is mostly used for architecture, but it makes mountains look much more impressive and high, making the top of the mountain look bigger.

The tilt allows you to position the plane of sharpest focus... so, in a shot like this, you could have everything, from the extreme foreground to the horizon, not far from the Plane of sharpest focus.

Depth of field (DOF) merge can also achieve this.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad