Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Rain in the Distance  (Read 846 times)
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« on: February 05, 2013, 08:49:50 PM »
ReplyReply

On the Monaro High Plains, after a dry spell.
Logged

RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2013, 08:54:31 PM »
ReplyReply

The clouds are dramatic and exposed really nicely. I am not so sure the f/g matches the intensity or drama. My eye want's the camera to point slightly more to the left to pickup more mass on the tree stand and less space to the right of the bright rock. The aspect ratio feels a tiny bit extreme considering there's not too much on the right?
It's overall pleasing and dramatic.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6055


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2013, 09:18:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Top: nice

Bottom: missing

 Smiley
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 09:56:46 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2013, 11:07:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the comments. A quick and dirty response:
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6877


« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 04:14:41 AM »
ReplyReply

This last version is more pleasing. I'd wish to see a bit more foreground (but it might lessen the impact of the clouds).
Logged

Francois
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6428



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2013, 10:39:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Good shooting, Ken. I'd like to see more foreground too, and I doubt it would interfere with the clouds. It's not quite balanced at the moment, but still pretty good.
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2013, 10:49:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Yup. The foreground rocks are trying mightily to echo the shapes of the clouds, and weight the image down, but they're outnumbered!

That said, a lot to love, here! Have you tried simply ditching the foreground rocks?

Also, there is a weird artifact in the sky directly above the peak of the foreground rock, you seem to have cloned two identical copies of some cloud detail.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2013, 10:53:02 AM »
ReplyReply

The second version is different but not particularly more effective. There is an unnatural aspect to the large rock on the right. It appears to be dissected along the horizontal, right about through the middle. By looking we know there is more rock or something there. It's not resting on the ground, but rather resting on the edge of the photo. Can you put more f/g into the picture? If you can, this would also improve the aspect ratio which feels too extreme.

By what can be seen, you have a lot of material here to work with. The challenge is organizing it. There's no question the clouds are dramatic and interesting, but they can't carry the photo on their own. If there is no more f/g to be shown, then of course the question is whether the "split rock" is adding or subtracting from the composition.
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2013, 03:06:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I am increasingly puzzled by this. There seems to be duplication extending into the background landscape, so you're not simply cloning clouds. Is this a botched splice in some panorama software?

If so, why doesn't the duplication extend over the foreground rock?

I think this is SOME sort of composite image, but what, I cannot quite put my finger on.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2013, 05:09:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Is this a botched splice in some panorama software?
Yes. The whole thing is messy when looked at in detail, but I still considered it worth while working on the composition and getting some input on that. My overall conclusion is that on order to make progress I would need to reshoot the pano in portrait orientation to give me more choices as to the balance between sky and ground - as well as achieving a more successful splice. Thanks again for the input.
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 06, 2013, 05:10:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Gotcha. It's a shame, since the clouds were GLORIOUS that day!
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2013, 05:26:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The other thing the responses have made me realize is that when I shoot panos I need to visualize the final result as a composition as I would with a single frame, and then take the necessary multiple frames, rather than just shooting a grid of images and hoping to fix the composition after stitching.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 06:04:17 PM by kencameron » Logged

David Eckels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1002


Paris sidewalk cafe


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2013, 05:30:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I would only have similar input to the others. FWIW, I keep wanting to climb on top of that rock and re-compose, but I agree, those clouds are fantastic!
Logged

Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2013, 06:16:21 PM »
ReplyReply

The other thing the responses have made me realize is that when I shoot panos I need to visualize the final result as a composition as I would with a single frame...

Ah, but then you might lose some of the serendipity that comes from exploring this photographic technique. I know that I was frequently surprised by my early attempts at panos.  Not to say that you're not an experienced pano shooter, but that we can all be surprised by panos.

Agreed, though.  Visualizing the final result is important.

I also agree with the others;  an excellent opportunity not fully realized.  I want more foreground, especially the savannah-like area to the left.  I want to see all of those trees, please. : )
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808


« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2013, 04:21:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not an experienced pano shooter but any time I have done it is to bear in mind to shoot wider than your vision demands. Sometimes when stitching you lose something top & bottom because of the software isn't perfect. Better to have too much than too little and I didn't mention the word crop. Wink
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad