Alberta landscapes - critque please

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

10/19/2006 12:32:43 PM · #1

Hi,
I'm new to photography, so I'm not too sure what needs improving on these photos. Any comments/advice?
Thanks.
Diane

image 1

image 2

image 3

Message edited by ursula - changed large images to links.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

10/19/2006 12:43:23 PM · #2

Hi, Diane, welcome to DPC!

All three are beautiful. The first two give a good feel for the vastness of Alberta. The third uses light and selective focus very well, however, I might consider not centering the "knot" quite as much for the image to be a bit more dynamic.

I changed your images to links - large images take a long time to load for some users, so we ask our users to please post links or thumbnails instead of large images.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/19/2006 12:49:32 PM · #3

Gotcha -- thanks for the comments and for editing the links. :)

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

10/19/2006 12:55:00 PM · #4

Welcome to DPC Diane.

Good eye for the light in the first two. Good use of shallow DOF (depth of field) in the third. You might try increasing the DOF slightly to increase the definition of the hill in the background but that's just personal taste.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/19/2006 01:34:37 PM · #5

Welcome to DPC! ;o)

I took one of the photos and edited it a bit.

I adjusted the white balance by taking a grey point off the clouds in different spots until I found the desired warmth (using a Levels layer) and darkened the blacks a bit.

Did some dodging and burning on the clouds, and bit of burning on the edges to bring the eye away from the edges.

Some minor boosts in yellow and red with a hue/sat layer.

Edit - the DOF here seems a bit short, or the resize killed some of the detail in the background. I forgot to say that I used a sharpening brush on the mountains and some of the middle grass a bit. USM destroyed the foreground so I used the brush instead.

Message edited by author 2006-10-19 13:37:09.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/19/2006 02:28:30 PM · #6

I agree with you cpanaioti, I wish I would have gotten a little more in focus in that pic.

Thanks wavelength, that looks great! I'm gonna have to learn more PP.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

10/19/2006 02:36:38 PM · #7

image 1

This is the most usuable shot, IMO. It presents a good amount of interest via subject, depth, contrast and composition, in terms of the givens, at the very least, of that which you saw and found worth capturing. The light, where it counts (along the features of the hills) it nicely contained/exposed, albeit at the expense of having blown some highlights (adjacent cloud), which is correctable (others here can capably suggest how).

The choice to include much sky makes good sense, too, considering the expanse of location with its repetitive forms outside of the image (that which the lens or your crop left out ?) and the ominous drama above it.

The fore- and middle-grounds, so necessary for a gentle progression and proliferation of the enormous potential depth of this shot come out too underexposed, leaving no discernible features and tones so we may fully appreciate the image for what it could be. The fence, particularly, contributes fact (truth via the partial data it adds) and the variation and order it introduces to the whole.

While, to my senses, it would be desirable to lighten the entire foreground, the groves near the POI (the light, the light!) demand a decent visible tonality (revealing some sort of pattern suggestive of what the groves are made of).

image 2

Well, I'm not sure it's worth tackling. It appears problematic, to me, to sort out what the POI (point(s) of interest is (or 'are'). And even if one succeeded in identifying what elements to focus on and to determine how to process these, I cannot see how this could be satisfactorily be accomplished without selective cropping. But for this we'd need detail, good tones (aka a fairly consistent exposure), and lots of this, which, it appears, is not there.

Ergo, I'd trash it. Sorry.

image 3

The image has nothing that moves me. It's dull, 'cept when I squint and look at it (it turns to pure colours in a very abstract sort of way). Although the effect (I artificially introduced) is pleasant, it's not enough, for me, to circumvent the trash can.

Encore une fois, je m'excuse.

Message edited by author 2006-10-19 14:40:33.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/19/2006 03:03:58 PM · #8

Okay, since Zeus said so. :P

Some of the same as the last shot.

I decreased midtone contrast and then added it in via dodge/burn to control the shadows and highlights better. There are probably other methods of doing the same.

I also added a color gradient to the clouds in hue blending mode.