| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2005 09:52:42 PM · #151 |
Here's one I took over the weekend that was intended to work as a dominant foreground subject. But perhaps the dominance is diminished here by the leading lines of the stream which brings you into the photo?
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:06:54 AM · #152 |
Originally posted by rsm707:
How about this one for Dominant Foreground Subject:
After thinking more about this shot, have come to the conclusion this is probably more of a dominant focal than subject, so am trying again with this one:
 |
You're correct in your distinctioin between the two shots, and that the second is more on-topic than the first. I'm not sure that foreground "dominates" the image in any real way, but it's an image with a lot of foreground and detail to absorb.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:10:26 AM · #153 |
To my (arbitrary for this assignment) way of thinking, one of these images illustrates "Landscape with a Dominant Foreground". The first is closer to "Landscape Without Subject", the other two are photographs "of" trees, and the trees are in the middleground, not the foreground. I very much like the "Three Brothers" shot, regardless.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:17:48 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by punamkumar:
Hi R,
Great to get a new assignment! And to see so much activity on the thread again. Here's one for the new assignment. What do you think?
Punam |
Punam, that's an interesting submission to this assignment. Let's look at it in a little depth. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the monastery was not on the hilltop, OK? IF this were the case, would the image really be a "Landscape with Dominant Foreground Subject"? Arguably, yes, since the rock/mountain/hill (whatever you call it) certainly fills the foreground, BUT... it also fills the middle ground and all the way to background, doesn't it? In fact, all in all the image wouldn't be that interesting, if the monastery weren't there; it's basically just a lot of rock, and actually what it NEEDS is some sort of foreground interest to break up all that rock.
Now look at it as it actually is, witht he monastery in place. It's a better picture for the presence of the monastery, of course, but that leads us to an obvious conclusion: the monastery itself is actually the subject of the shot, really... And it's definitely NOT foreground, so...
Now, it would be nice if the rock were more gracefully lit, with raking light that gave us more texture; it's not "bad" the way it is, but that vast rock area needs a little something descriptive is my feeling. In a similar sense, I wish the monastery "popped" a little better, visually.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:20:52 AM · #155 |
Originally posted by arngrimur:
Here is one for the "Landscapes Dominated by Foreground Subjects " assignment
 |
Angrimur, your image fulfills the assignment to a "T". There's a great sense of scale operating here, with the much smaller rock echoing, and even surpassing, the power of the more distant mountain shapes. The contrast is way aggressive here, though; you're losing too much in the shadows for this to work well. On a more subtle note, I wish the peak of the rock were not eclipsing the actual peak behind it, although I suspect this was your intention in taking the picture.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:24:50 AM · #156 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Here's one I took over the weekend that was intended to work as a dominant foreground subject. But perhaps the dominance is diminished here by the leading lines of the stream which brings you into the photo?
|
Neil, yours works pretty well for the assignment, though you're not far off in your assessment either. In the sense that the water itself is the "subject", it leads us a little deep to be considered a "foreground subject". There is, however, considerable visual interest in the foreground itself, so...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here:
These "classifications" are exceedingly arbitrary, and few images will precisely match any one of the classifications I have defined for pedagogical purposes. Most images will borrow from two or more of these classifications to create their own, mini-category.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 03:36:17 AM · #157 |
Okay, time for another assignment. Up until now we've been looking at the "big picture" as it were, and dealing with compositional approaches other than the much-abused "rule of thirds with subject" which is used to justify all manner of perfectly predictable, boring shots. Now let's leave "compositional lessons" aside for a while (we'll come back later) and move in another direction. Your new assignment is:
God is in the Details: the Landscape up Close
Climb in, get tight, give us a sense of the place by showing us the details of the place.
     
Note that of these examples several are actually wide angle shots; the topic does not REQUIRE zooming in with telephoto, though that's surely one approach. One of the shots, the dunes, arguably includes enough of the broader world to "disqualify" it from this category, but it is nonetheless completely dominated by the buried fence and the near grasses.
Have fun!
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 09:35:07 AM · #158 |
Landscape up close, from this weekend's shoot.
Or too much background? This assignment definitely overlaps with the last for the style of dominant foregrounds I shoot!
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 12:05:45 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Landscape up close, from this weekend's shoot.
Or too much background? This assignment definitely overlaps with the last for the style of dominant foregrounds I shoot! |
Borderline, Neil. One has the sense of "looking at the whole thing"; the stream, the source, the stream's environment. Crop it from the top until it's square, and it would be a "detail". Nice shot, as usual.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 05:49:17 PM · #160 |
Landscape up close:
 |
|
|
|
10/21/2005 06:18:48 PM · #161 |
How are these for close-up?
  
Message edited by author 2005-10-21 18:24:35.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2005 09:03:30 PM · #162 |
I was actually going to use this for the "My Corner of the World" Challenge, but decided against it. I wasn't very happy with the way it turned out, but I think it fits for landscape up close.
Whatcha think?
 |
|
|
|
10/22/2005 11:45:50 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by rsm707:
Landscape up close:
|
Fits the assignment, yup. Kinda chaotic, overall, from a compositional perspective. Also, for what it's worth, watch out with your USM; processing artifacts on the edges here.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2005 11:51:01 AM · #164 |
"Gothic Trees" is beautiful, but it probably fits better "Landscape Without Subject" than it does this category. Another example of crossover, it's certainly a detail as well, but a "broad" detail as it were.
"Surreal Falls" is forgeous, and works well for the assignment. If you could see the pool where the falls end, it would slip out of this category, if you catch my drift? Share the PP details on this one?
"Morning Grandeur" has less of a sense of being a detail, and not coincidentally shows the terminal pool of the falls. It's not, to my eyes, as nice an image as the other two.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2005 11:54:45 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
I was actually going to use this for the "My Corner of the World" Challenge, but decided against it. I wasn't very happy with the way it turned out, but I think it fits for landscape up close.
Whatcha think?
|
I think it's more a picture of a cotton boll than it is a "landscape" or even a detail of a landscape. I can't put my finger on why, but that's how it feels to me. Overall, it's just a totally chaotic image as far as I'm concerned. I guess the BG needs to be even more OOF, but... Compositionally it's quite problematic.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2005 11:58:40 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by stormy:
I hope it's not too late to join ?? This is a really great thread!!
I had a look through my portfolio and found some landscapes that (I think) fit the assignment categories.
If its too late for the first assignments then you don't have to pay attention to them.
Landscape without subject:
 
etc... (snipped) |
Stormy, welcome aboard. You have some nice images here, and generally you have got the idea. I look forward to your continued participation. Sorry I missed these earlier.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2005 03:33:53 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Surreal Falls" is forgeous, and works well for the assignment. If you could see the pool where the falls end, it would slip out of this category, if you catch my drift? Share the PP details on this one?
R. |
Both Gothic trees and Surreal Falls were run through the "Gothic Glow" ps action (hence the "gothic_trees.jpg" for lack of a better title). Other than that, saturation was increased, levels were adjusted, contrast was bumped up (using radius of 50 on USM), and some sharpening was done via USM.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2005 05:30:37 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Surreal Falls" is forgeous, and works well for the assignment. If you could see the pool where the falls end, it would slip out of this category, if you catch my drift? Share the PP details on this one?
R. |
Both Gothic trees and Surreal Falls were run through the "Gothic Glow" ps action (hence the "gothic_trees.jpg" for lack of a better title). Other than that, saturation was increased, levels were adjusted, contrast was bumped up (using radius of 50 on USM), and some sharpening was done via USM. |
Okay, makes sense. I got that on the first one, but since the second didn't have "gothic" in the title I wondered if it was different :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 04:46:06 PM · #169 |
I'm not sure what's happening in this group, whether anyone wishes to continue. Or whether people want to see us steer in a different direction. In any case, here's a little anecdote, and a final assignment in this series of "perspectives on the landscape":
The other day the edge of Wilma blew away and we had a very windy day with dramatic skies and fitful rain. I had beennoticing that I was so much in love with my new 10-22mm lens that I was shooting practically every landscape in super-wide. Since our most recent assignment here had been "Landscape Up Close", showing the sense of the whole through details, I decided to give MYSELF an assignment for the day, and went out and spent half the day shooting with nothing but the 70-200mm lens. My goal was to Compact the Landscape, layering distant and near to try to convey breadth or range without wide angle. I even gave up my "256 Mb is plenty" stance and bought a 1 Gb card for this assignment :-) Reason for that was, it was windy as hell and I knew I'd have camera movement problems even on the tripod. I was experimenting with different shutter speeds to see how big of a problem this was.
Turned out it was quite a problem, actually. Even with tripod and cable release, sharpness was an issue at anything less than 1/250. Anyway... the images:
   
Comments welcome. These vary from 70mm to 200mm. It's interesting how there's a certain sense of "wide" in some of them even though they are tele shots. Take a look at these, then go try something similar yourselves, OK?
Assignment: "Compact the Landscape"
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2005 05:33:03 PM · #170 |
I think that they convey the sense of wide because there is a hint, especially in the first one surf and marsh of the scene being much wider even though not in the frame and it gives you the sense of width also the depth through all four conveys far perhaps more than wide, but with the same effect. The problem with really wide angles sometimes it seems to me is that details in the centre of the frame seem so small and lost in the wide angles. Don't get me wrong I love the super-wides as well. Might have try this assignment in a while when I realise that I haven't removed the 10-22 from my soon-to-be 20D!
|
|
|
|
10/29/2005 11:02:52 PM · #171 |
Thanks for the new assignment, bear. I very much would like to see this group continue. As winter approaches, my "available light" shooting time goes down immensely (gets dark early this far north!) so most of my forays must be saved for weekends. I have been trying to get a better shot for the last assignment but haven't been satisfied enough to post one yet. Now I will have 2 to post!
As for your shots, I really like the fourth one with the cloud shadows over the foreground emphasizing the brightness in the distance. The portrait shots seem to give you the feel of width with the horizon lines just making you want to peek "outside the box" to see more.
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge! :)
Ricky |
|
|
|
10/30/2005 09:22:15 PM · #172 |
 for the current assignment.
Looks like nobody wants to keep this thread going but me. Oh, well, it was great while it lasted. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge bear_music. I feel like I have really learned a fair bit (still a long way to go but it's a start!)
Message edited by author 2005-11-20 23:07:55. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 02:33:47 PM EDT.
