| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2005 11:53:24 PM · #26 |
Thanks, Owen. I appreciate the comment.
Also, I edited my previous post about your shot. It looks a lot better on my home system.
Thanks again! |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 01:49:58 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by alionic:
My humble offerings are as follows.....
(images snipped)
I hope i understood the point to this thread ok .. |
Sort of but not really on-topic, but that's ok. Look at some of the other shots to see more generalized examples of pure color and texture. Let me take a quick fly-by of these images:
An appealing view, but looks more like a "record shot" than a composed image. The light is not very interesting. Hot spots on clouds blown out badly. Horizon not level. Horizon line too central, static composition.
Much more interssting image, although much of what makes it more interesting is that it actually has a trace of subject(s); the breaking wave, the mountain peak, they tend to dominate the shot visually a little bit, so it's not quite "landscape without subject" as it breaks into definable zones of interest very easily. Color-balance wise, an odd combination of slightly magenta sky with greenish water. I'd take some magenta out of the image, myself. The horizon line is a little too close to centered for my tatstes on this particular image; I can't decide whether the focus is on the sky or the water. So it's a little static.
This is an exceptionally nice image but it's not really "without subject", since the skyline is by far the controlling element here. Admittedly, you have to LOOK to see it, but once you resolve it out of the haze it takes charge of the image.
Strong composition marred by very flat lighting and overly-agressive green shrubbery to left. There's also too much foreground IMO: the ponmd is centered way too much. I have tried cropping it to just below the large foreground rock, and I think this makes it much more dynamic. I'd also burn in the brighter foreground and the shrubs substantially, to contain the pond better and lend it even more drama. I'm not a fan of fisheye in general, but it works well here. Again, though, this isn't really "landscape without subject" as the pond totally dominates the image.
Here's the pond shot in a quick-and-dirty crop/edit to indicate what I'm talking about:
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-21 14:00:19.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:12:09 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by tsheets:
Hello all. I've spent the past couple of days reading up on the previous landscape and natural light threads (lots of great info there!!).
I went poking around my HD for a decent subjectless landscape, and this is what I came up with:
Very flat lighting, but what caught my eye were the colors.
What do you think? Does it "work" as a subjectless landscape? With the treeline limiting the depth, does it even qualify as a landscape?? :-/
edit: BTW, Thanks Bear, for opening this up for everyone to participate and resurrecting this mentorship thread. I, as I'm sure many others, appreciate your willingness to help us learn the art of natural light and landscape photography. |
To answer your question "does it qualify as a landscape", of course it does. The history of landscape photography is full of brilliant detail work. Google Eliot Porter to see some :-) God, after all, is in the details, as they say.
Is it a "subjectless landscape" in the context of this discussion? I'd say yes. The overall sense here is of three, almost abstract, fields of color. Arguably, it would work better if the light on the flowers were coming in backlit or on more of a "rake", so they were more luminous, but that's a debatable point; part of the charm of the image is its very flatness. It's "deep" and "not-deep" at the same time. I quite like it; it pleases me. I especially like that it's divided 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 instead of into thirds, the more "conventional" approach to "good" composition.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:15:42 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Hrm, I guess that's kinda broad. When I took the shot I was concentrating on the shape of the water and the reflected clouds and light but if there was a subject there I would say it was probably the emptyness. |
This one fits the assignment to a tee, very nice shot, almost pure landscape-as-abstraction, limned in broad strokes. The luminosity is palpable; the shot's all about light. I'd consider muting the brighter stalks in the foreground; they distract a little IMO.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:17:41 PM · #30 |
| Thanks for the input Mr Bear I appreciate you taking the time to offer me some help and guidence. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 02:22:55 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by rsm707:
I am so happy I found this thread! I love shooting landscapes and would love to learn how to make them better! Here is my go at this assignment:
I plan to read up on the previous threads later this week to catch up on whatever I missed. Any comments on this photo are much appreciated. |
This one also fits the assignment very well. There's much to like here, although there are ways this image could be improved compositionally and technically.
In a technical sense, the big problem is a lack of visual acuity, sharpness. While I'm not a stickler for tack-sharpness in ALL images, this one seems to be soft to no good effect. It's probablky as simple as applying some careful USM.
Compositionally the image is problematic, because it's divided into two zones straight down the middle: empty sky on top and sky-with-clouds plus foreground landscape in the bottom half. The end result is a very static composition. The quality of the light is pretty flat, though, so I'm not sure how well it would support more foreground. Cropping to a much narrower horizontal format would make this image pop quite a bit more. Although the photographer commented that he had placed the horizon line to follow the rule of thirds, it doesn't really work that way, because the "true" visual horizon here runs along the top of the horizontal clouds. Imagine the shot with clouds throughout the sky, and then it would fit the rule of thirds.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-21 14:25:39.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 03:43:22 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by arngrimur:
I really like this approach. I find it to be less restrictive, more abstract and have more emphasis on color and light. |
This is definitely a "landscape without subject", and a rich and moody one to boot. Very nicely done. I'd darken the image a little at the top; the tonalities are reversing a bit and leading us out of the image at the upper right, and that's contrary to how the composition is leading us, which is in and deep. I particulalry like how angrimur raised his horizon to just a bit above center, avoiding absolute symmetry in the placement of it. The extra, dark weight below anchors this image very well.
R.
Message edited by author 2005-09-21 15:43:58.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:17:17 PM · #33 |
The texture of mounatins above the treeline, the contours of the land. An attempt to capture this.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:42:19 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by suprada:
The texture of mounatins above the treeline, the contours of the land. An attempt to capture this. |
It's "landscape without subject" for sure. But have you captured the texture and the contours? I would day not. Why? Because the light is totally flat, and nothing is defined. The whole canvas is flat, basically. We know, intellectually, that there's depth here but it doesn't "read" in the image. At the same time, the colors themselves are not varoegated enough to produce an image of real interest; basically, it looks like muddy-red soil, and that's it. The two snow patches make nice grace notes though :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:49:22 PM · #35 |
These images are sort of in-betweeners also. They are all pleasant to look at, but by and large they aren't quite no-subject to my eye. In the first three the immature trees, especially the foreground tree in the second one, tend to compel as subjects and the rest of the image is canvas relative to them. In the second shot, if the foreground tree were not there you'd be closer to the mark. They aren't really dominant subjects, mind you, but in the overall context they draw the eye to the expense of the rest.
The sunset is a "picture of clouds"; it has a subject.
In "Hemlock Lake" (a lovely image btw) the clouds and the backlit ttrees are clearly dominant visual elements.
That's not to say these are not "good" pictures (though I think the first three are a little flat myself), just that they don't illustrate well the point I'm making here.
See enxt post for a reiteration of my "point".
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 04:51:55 PM · #36 |
Robert: some feedback: Your critiques are a great read and a good instructional tool to us all. This is what will make mentoring succeed, I believe. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 05:02:55 PM · #37 |
End of Assignment Summary
The purpose of this assignment was to show that in landscape photography you don't HAVE to have a dominant subject for the composition to orient around. Landscapes are prime candidates for abstraction, color field work, explorations of the nature of light itself. It's good to free ourselves sometimes from conventional compositional rules-of-thumb and explore pure vision without dominant elements.
Which leads us to our NEXT ASSIGNMENT:
******************
Landscapes Organized Around a Dominant Focal Point
This is the polar opposite of the just-concluded assignment; here I want you to use a single, dominant element to organize your image around. I'd prefer that this be a foreground element, or at least a middleground element. For the purposes of this assignment, towering clouds in a massive sky or a mountain peak dominating the horizon are not what I'm looking for. That will be the next assignment, ok?
Examples from my portfolio:
  
The "dominant" element does not have to be natural. In fact, many times it will NOT be natural, as in my jetty and my skiff. In the submissions for the previous topic, the shot of the blue-green pond is very close to fulfilling this requirement also; the pond is an almost-dominant element there. It's borderline for the previous assignment, actually.
Not that this MATTERS, of course; to not "meet the assignment" is not an indictment of an image; we are applying arbitrary criteria here to illustrate compositional possibilities. And my interpretation of how an image fits within the range of these criteria is arbitrary as well; but I'm your "mentor" for better or for worse, so I get to express what I think :-)
Have at it, people. Remember: for the time being at least this is an open group. I only ask that that newcomers to the group familiarize themselves with what has come before and make an attempt to stay on topic. And I appreciate group members' feedback on all these images as well; I'm strong-willed and articulate, but that doesn't mean I'm always right :-)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-21 17:05:18.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 05:06:09 PM · #38 |
| Thanks for the time Bear! I'm really interested in landscape photography. This is going to help out a lot. |
|
|
|
09/21/2005 05:28:55 PM · #39 |
Thanks for the feedback Bear. I appreciate the time you are putting in to help us improve. By the way - I am female.8)
Ricky |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 10:18:47 AM · #40 |
After taking yesterday to read through the Natural Light thread, I feel I would like to take the time to do those exercises first before continuing here. I am, however, posting a pic I took this summer that I think fits the current assignment and would appreciate any feedback. I will redo it again after the other exercises to see how my new found outlook at light will change my photography.
I'll be back... |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 10:59:16 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by rsm707:
After taking yesterday to read through the Natural Light thread, I feel I would like to take the time to do those exercises first before continuing here. I am, however, posting a pic I took this summer that I think fits the current assignment and would appreciate any feedback. I will redo it again after the other exercises to see how my new found outlook at light will change my photography.
I'll be back... |
From where I'm sitting the image you've shown fits "Landscape Without Subject" more than it does "Landscape Organized Around a Dominant Focal Element", the current assignment. Is that what you meant? This image is all about light & texture and is fundamentally subjectless. Nice shot, too. Oddly enough, it has one anomaly that might qualify as sort-of-a-subject-but-not-really, the diagonal branch in left foreground. And for my tastes it would probably work better without the branch, though that's a very personal evaluation and not all would agree with me.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 11:09:50 AM · #42 |
Robert, how about this one as fitting assignment 2?
Edit: or this one:
Message edited by author 2005-09-22 11:20:29.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 11:16:57 AM · #43 |
More waterscape than landscape but I think this qualifies. The pier dominates and yet the rest of the scene sets the mood, I hope!
 
The above both have elements in the shot, but maybe not as dominating as the assignment wants.
I guess it's something I should work on! |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 12:38:32 PM · #44 |
I think all 3 fit the bill. The first one is amazing! The pier definitely dominates, but the rest of the image really supports it nicely. Great mood, love the drama!
In the second one, the clouds are interesting, but the tree really does demand the attention. If it were a little more in the foreground, it would be more dominant, but I think it does great where it's at. The light on the left sides of the branches make it stand out against the relatively featureless ground.
The third one does have more going on, but the foreground horse is the dominant subject. Interesting treatment on this one. The only thing that bothers me are the two really heavy/dark bushes. To me, they compete with the horse for attention, simply becuase of the 'weight'.
All very nicely done!
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 12:43:02 PM · #45 |
For the Record: We are not making a distinction here between landscapes, waterscapes, and skyscapes; if it's the natural world we call it "landscape" photography OK? We'll even gointo shooting landscape on a macro scale later :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 12:47:06 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Robert, how about this one as fitting assignment 2?
Edit: or this one:
|
These are both great shots, but they're not quite as cut-and-dried as what I'm seeking here. The dominant element in the Mohawk shot (the foreground plant) fills a good half of the image from side-to-side. The cloud dominates the other shot, but it's a background element, not a fore-or-middle-ground element. We'll get to that sort of stuff next.
Great shots though, both of 'em :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 12:54:47 PM · #47 |
The Cheyenne Bottoms shot is exactly what I'm talking about. See how that single, gnarled, middle-ground tree commands equal-or-greater attention than the immense, overpowering sky? Imagine the image without the tree, how much less satisfying it would be. The tree ties it all together, its barreness adds a poignant emotional note, it gives a tangible sense of depth to the whole. Where our first assignment explored (essentially) variations on depth-less, abstract landscapes, this assignment wants to go in the toher, more conventional direction.
The Solitude shot is very powerful, but it's arguably not "really" a landscape, I'm not sure... The dock totally controls the landscape there, rendering a sense of landscape-as-background to something man-made.
The shot with the horse, ummm... It comes across more as a shot of horse-in-landscape than it does landscape-with-horse. This is a subtle point, and it's a great shot, but again it's not quite what I was preconceiving when I threw this topic up. Of course, that's neither here-nor-there, right? I'm only one opinion, after all, and we're just applying labels after the fact anyway, for tutorial reasons.
Soldier on, people!
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 12:58:07 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Robert, how about this one as fitting assignment 2?
Edit: or this one:
|
These are both great shots, but they're not quite as cut-and-dried as what I'm seeking here. The dominant element in the Mohawk shot (the foreground plant) fills a good half of the image from side-to-side. The cloud dominates the other shot, but it's a background element, not a fore-or-middle-ground element. We'll get to that sort of stuff next.
Great shots though, both of 'em :-)
Robt. |
Thanks. Will look for something else. Note: to me the tree in the second one was the subject. Perhaps this is overwhelmed by it being intentionally dark.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2005 01:00:14 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Robert, how about this one as fitting assignment 2?
Edit: or this one:
|
The first one, definitely. I remember seeing this posted as an example of backlight. It's a very nice shot.
Second one, IMHO, while it has foreground elements, I think they do more to provide scale and balance than become the focal point. It's another really nice shot, I love the mood the lighting provides, I just don't feel that the foreground trees/rocks are the dominant subject. |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 02:45:36 PM · #50 |
| Thanks for your thoughts Robt. Note to self...need bigger object to show Dominate object.... will do!.... :) |
|
