Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Revisiting Landscape: Techniques and Good Practices?  (Read 3350 times)
bill proud
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2012, 10:16:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I didn't see this last image on your site, which of course is much better, and makes me wonder what the point of the first image is? I really thought the rock question was a 'no brainer'. This led me to think you were just a beginner and that is where I started on my comments.

Obviously you are not a beginner.

Back to the first image. I thought possibly you were heading for the serenity aspect of it, I just didn't feel it. And maybe from your standpoint asking a bunch of jaded photographers, (at least myself), is not the best study group to query. Perhaps you should look for people who take Carnival cruises as a better feedback source?

Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2012, 01:12:08 PM »
ReplyReply

New watermark.

Big improvement. Now I suggest you move it down a bit, so it's obviously there but not blindingly in the way: somewhere near the junction of the lower and middle thirds would be reasonable.

Jeremy
Logged
Wim van Velzen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2012, 01:36:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Much beter indeed!
Logged

I don't have a signature.
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2012, 05:39:03 PM »
ReplyReply

This is my kind of image. Artistically possibly too much blue but a member of the picture buying public will happy to see it hung on their wall. Maybe a little more yellow/orange saturation to balance it out?

Yes, it is too much blue. I like the original version better. I'll update that when I get a chance. It's a product of post processing that after so many hours I get a sort of "yeah that looks even better" when in fact, it's because my mind gets use to more contrast and other digital manipulation, and thinks it needs even more. Ironically, the opposite happens too, and results in too little adjustments.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5000



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2012, 06:01:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Splendid capture! Have you tried flipping it horizontally? I know it would not be location-realistic, but I think it would work compositionally better.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
John R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1013


« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2012, 06:57:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Over the years I have attended many seminars given by professionals and many great amateurs. What I have gathered is, of all the principles in visual design, I think the most important is balance.  So while lines and shapes and where they are placed in a space, are important, they are secondary to Balance. This is why we often see images that seem to work visually but appear to break  the "rules." I think we as individuals are also prejudiced to wanting things a certain way, even if an image looks perfectly fine. The fact you have cut boats or placed objects or other shapes at edge of the space, does not alter the fact the images work and look fine. By the way, very nice work.

JMR
Logged
michaelwm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2012, 07:44:12 PM »
ReplyReply

michaelwm

As stated above, I didn't post those becsaue I thought they were great images. I posted them specifically because they illustrate a problem, or perhaps a problem.

When I look at these images, I think something like, "Hmm, yeah, pretty nice, nothing special." But those types of images will sell to people looking for a postcard, which I sell from my site in the shopping cart. So I decided to include a lot of those. Now in my portfolio, which I still haven't organized and have just a bunch of random images in for now, I will post what I think is my best work, or at least work that demonstrates a breadth in photography.

To answer your question, the reason some people like what I don't is because they're right, period. Sometimes people just see a better image after I really think about it. I might have been caught up in some specific lighting pattern I wanted to get and had too much focus on that aspect of the image, for instance.

Another reason is becsaue I usually have several variations of the same shot, as you see above, and even if there isn't anything technically wrong with the variations, tastes differ, and even good tastes differ.

To address your last question, the far away feeling was definitely on purpose. If it makes you feel far away, then it has achieved it's goal. I don't always try to make images that make people feel good. The day I shot those images, it was overcast and low contrast. I was in a very isolated emotional state, and the scene reflected my feelings, so I tried to capture that emotion in the images.

Another thing I've learned about photography is that there are many way people relate to an image, none of which are necessarily wrong.

I think many people misunderstood why I posted these images. It was for technical discussion about edge of frame objects, not as a critique of the images themselves. (Not that I mind at all because the other side is even more fun than the tech side, but the tech side is important.)

If I had wanted to impress people with my ability, I would have posted something I think is more worthy, like the below image, but with different post processing .



Thanks for the reply, I understand the images you post are because you have a problem with them some how. This is also why I post to forums such as this, there is a wide range of expertise and opinions! I pointed out your other work because there are features that work in them, the hard part is working out why. I didn't mean to imply that you should have posted them, why would you, you know they're good!

I suppose in a round about kind of way, I was trying to say this:

Image #1, the rocks are in the foreground but far away, so I'm kind of torn between being in the image, and viewing from a distance. They kind of contradict there own existence in  a way(?).

Image #2, I get the sense that I am looking from afar, and some of my favourite landscaped have this feeling, especially some from AA.

Image #3, I find too cluttered, no real comment.

Thanks again for posting them,
Michael
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2012, 07:56:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Splendid capture! Have you tried flipping it horizontally? I know it would not be location-realistic, but I think it would work compositionally better.

You know I haven't. I'll try it. Since western people read left to right, that does have an impact on how we see an image.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2012, 08:06:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I really thought the rock question was a 'no brainer'. This led me to think you were just a beginner and that is where I started on my comments.

We have contradictory responses on whether or not the rocks should or should not be there, however.

Back to the first image. I thought possibly you were heading for the serenity aspect of it, I just didn't feel it. And maybe from your standpoint asking a bunch of jaded photographers, (at least myself), is not the best study group to query. Perhaps you should look for people who take Carnival cruises as a better feedback source?

Not "serenity" in the least. I think I used the word "isolated," which I guess could produce serenity, or anxiety too. The image was suppose to depict silence, calmness, isolation and then whatever else the person viewing feels, or does not feel.

Perhaps you should look for people who take Carnival cruises as a better feedback source?

I don't have any association with people who take carnival cruises, so I don't know what "kind" of people they are. I would be considered a "poor" person by USA standards, although not destitute. What I do know is the kind of people who use this forum, which has always, without exception, produced positive results for me.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2012, 08:11:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Big improvement. Now I suggest you move it down a bit, so it's obviously there but not blindingly in the way: somewhere near the junction of the lower and middle thirds would be reasonable.

Jeremy

Oh I wish it were that simple. The watermark is applied automatically to over 1000 images at a time, many of which have different aspect ratios and orientations. That's why it doesn't matter where I put it really, unless I tell the script to put it near the bottom using x, y coordinates, and the software I'm using doesn't allow you to position a png watermark, only text. Can you imagine adjusting the mark for each image? See you in 2050.

Believe me, I've been all over this watermark thing since "watermark" was a word. There really just isn't any good solution, barring creating a custom watermark for each image and positioning it likewise.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 08:15:14 PM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2012, 08:13:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Over the years I have attended many seminars given by professionals and many great amateurs. What I have gathered is, of all the principles in visual design, I think the most important is balance.  So while lines and shapes and where they are placed in a space, are important, they are secondary to Balance. This is why we often see images that seem to work visually but appear to break  the "rules." I think we as individuals are also prejudiced to wanting things a certain way, even if an image looks perfectly fine. The fact you have cut boats or placed objects or other shapes at edge of the space, does not alter the fact the images work and look fine. By the way, very nice work.

JMR

JMR this reflects my sentiment perfectly, but I'm always compulsive about it. Nothing is ever "good enough" and always deserves to be challenged, and thanks.
Logged

IanBrowne
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2012, 08:21:38 PM »
ReplyReply

JMR this reflects my sentiment perfectly, but I'm always compulsive about it. Nothing is ever "good enough" and always deserves to be challenged, and thanks.
and there was the thought at pro print awards that there is never a perfect photograph so no photograph could receive 100 points.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2012, 09:02:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Splendid capture! Have you tried flipping it horizontally? I know it would not be location-realistic, but I think it would work compositionally better.

Forgot to say that you bring up another interesting topic, which is changing the scene after the fact. I'm gradually moving in the direction that anything I can do to an image that makes it better is just damn well fine, unless you're trying to capture a landmark and wish it to represent the landmark as closely as possible to how you saw it. But there's the problem.

Sometimes I see sunsets that are so saturated and the sky so blue that it looks fake in real life. So when you get home you need to desaturated them and turn down the contrast. So that brings up the next question: What if you have a very nicely composed image that is under saturated and lower contrast in real life, but when you bring it into Lightroom and make a few small adjustments, the colors and contrast pop and you have a really nice image--the way others "have" seen it, although unlike how you saw it at that time?

The same thing goes for cropping rocks when you can. Should I miss the shot simply because my camera is x aspect ratio instead of y? And if cropping results in a lesser image, what about simply cloning out the offending object while leaving the space?

So I'm beginning to be ok with all of that above, but where I stop, for landscape, is cutting and pasting, for example, a sky/cloud scene into an image because the sky was devoid of anything interesting. But why not? The same argument can be used that I used above. Conversely, I would have no problem cutting and pasting elements into commercial work in order to illuminate the product better--and that's good commercial technique.

But back to the "natural" landscape, if one wants the image to look "natural," as long as it looks natural, why not manipulate away? I mean manipulating images gives the photographer more latitude to express his or her creativity, regardless of whether or not that creativity results in a winner or a loser. Photographers have been doing it since film was invented, cropping, vignetting, letting the image sit in solution longer to pump up the contrast, using Velvia film for those over saturated scenes, light filters, graduated filters, everything.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2012, 09:02:48 PM »
ReplyReply

and there was the thought at pro print awards that there is never a perfect photograph so no photograph could receive 100 points.

True enough and I agree.
Logged

IanBrowne
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2012, 10:55:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Splendid capture! Have you tried flipping it horizontally? I know it would not be location-realistic, but I think it would work compositionally better.
rof lol that's my trick thank you very much Grin. And I don't feel it improved this image. When particle, I rotate most images when editing just see if it looks better.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2012, 02:10:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I looked at your pictures, now that you don't have a watermark over them and I find them quite good. I don't think the rocks at the bottom of the first picture distract. I like all the pictures. So just keep on the good work at improve your skills.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad