| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/02/2005 03:11:23 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by arngrimur:
Here is one for the "Landscape Dominated by Distant Subject" assignment
And for the "Landscape Framed by Foreground Objects" assignment
There is not a lot of trees in Icelandic landscape and they are generally very short so they are not very suitable for framing. |
Both of these answer the assignments very nicely, and are lovely images as well. That's about the most agressive "trees as framing" I've ever seen :-) Ranks right up there for aggression with this one, though yours is a better picture I think:
Rsm707 is correct that "framing" can be done by things other than trees, and for that mattter with devices other than silhouetting. The following shot of mine shows a much more subtle use of "framing":
The rocks in the foreground are a framing device; crop the image to exclude the rocks by ,oving the window down on your screen to see what the rocks are bringing to the party. There's also a sort of "secondary frame" at work here, with the clouds framing the moon. This image, incidentally, was an experiment in pretty extreme post processing, and as far as I'm concerned a mediocre one.
The shot of the wildflowers and the headland is very interesting to me. One thing I notice is how much BETTER it looks at 640 pixels than in thumbnail. It would be easy to pass over that thumbnail and miss a striking image. One easily-fixable "flaw" is the dark spot upper right. I'm not sure if it's dust or natural, but either way it's distracting and healing brush would completely eliminate it. One other thing: see how at the very bottom you have a dark area in the flower mass, and a few blossoms right on the edge? I'd crop the bottom bit off, to just above the blossoms there, still leaving a bit of the dark shape. This, coincidentally, helps "frame" your shot a tiny bit. But ,ore importantly, for me the location of the horizon here is just a tad too high, there's a slightly uneasy balance of sky mass and foreground. Removing just that tiny bit from the foreground seems to help that balance quite a lot. Maybe I'm being too picky...
Beyond that, I'd comment favorably on your (apparently) consious decision to leave the colors cold and the image bright. This is especially apparent in the sky, where you've resisted the temptation to jack the contrast and darken the blue into a more dramatic rendering. The sky as depicted has a distinctly cold, bright, wintry feel to it that works very well I think.
Nice shots!
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/02/2005 03:37:20 AM · #127 |
The first of these is a really good example of using that "dominant-element-that-is-not-subject" compositional technique. It's easy to imagine this image with the nearest hayroll being quite a bit further away, and even easier to see how much less effective it would be. On that shot I get a distinct sense that it's leaning to the right, though. It's not the "horizon"; I realize that's a diagonal. But there's a vaguely uneasy sense that the hayroll itself is not squared vertically, and indeed a closer examination of the BG trees shows this to be the case. I think perhaps half a degree or so of ccw rotation would work wonders here. I'd also consider cropping a small bit off the bottom, and possibly in from the left edge a bit too to maintain aspect ratio. Just like with arngrimur's field of flowers, this would give us a bit better ratio between foreground and sky, not so close to evenly divided. It's not that "evenly divided" is always a bad thing (I use centered horizons quite a lot, in defiance of the rule of thirds) but in this case the relationship of the hayroll with the right edge of the frame is more dynamic than the relationship between hayroll and bottom edge, and you can add considerable zest by balancing that corner better, witht he added benefit of moving the visual horizon a bit towards the bottom of the image from dead-center.
Your "distant subject" shot is sweet, but I think it would be sweeter still if you cropped foreground so that the width of the grass part is the same as the width of the trees part. Two equal bands then a lot of sky. Or burn in a gradient to the foreground, at least, to frame up a little more forcefully. The fence posts are a bit of a problem if you crop, but all in all I think I'd prefer the image without 'em anyway. If your sensibilities preclude cloning them out, a gradient burn would be the way to fo IMO. In this case you might goose the contrast in the sky a little too, if only by slightly darkening and desatting the blues so they are a bit less cartoonish.
In the "framed" shot, "Kelly's Bathtub" (how did you know my first great love was named Kelly and we used to backpack in the High Sierra, sigh...?) you have certainly accomplished the framing :-) The scene itself is lovely. But look at this image critically ok? See how the framing elements, the pines, are strong & contrasty & powerful, while the rendering of the landscape itself is relatively high-ket and ephemeral. This is an odd disconnect, so to speak, Couple that with the fact that the rightmost framing pine uses roughly half the image's real estate, splitting it into a tree mass on one side and a lake scene on the other, and you get a pretty weak composition out of an image that LOOKS like it ought to have everything going for it. Finally, the framing elements on the left are all broken, truncated, weird-looking. I donno, it's overall quite odd.
Try taking this shot and dramatically stepping up contrast and density in the scenery itself, and see where it leads you? I can't take a stab at it right now 'cuz there's no photoshop on this machine where I'm dogsitting...
I also can't sleep very well in that damned bed, is why I'm blathering on like this at this hour :-)
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/02/2005 10:35:52 PM · #128 |
Thanks for the detailed critque bear_music. I have redone 2 of the photos to try your suggestions. I really like the changes to the distant focal shot. As for the framed photo, that was one taken in the summer before I learned how to turn off most of the automatic settings on my camera. I'm not sure that can be saved even with your awesome PS skills. I orginally shot it with the trunks of both trees showing as well because I wanted the dark sides to use as a desktop background. I will try to take another shot using the framing technique. Anyway, here are the re-editted versions, any more comments would be appreciated.
 
|
|
|
|
10/02/2005 11:59:32 PM · #129 |
I think both edits turned out well. I didn't really see the need for improvements on the originals, but following Bear's suggestions, really did improve them.
nice job! |
|
|
|
10/03/2005 02:17:45 AM · #130 |
As mentioned earlier, here's the "framed" shot I didn't enter in the "corner of my world" challenge. Note that the framing isn't just the leabes across the sky; it's also the strong, diagonal shadow in the left foreground.
Didn't enter this one 'cuz the church is so danged recognizable after my Ansel image; but this is literally "my coner"; I can see it from my doorstep.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2005 10:13:51 AM · #131 |
| Nice shot bear_music...I would have given you a high vote on it! I see what you mean about the shadows being part of the framing. They draw your eye towards the church. |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 10:01:57 AM · #132 |
Wonderful shot Rob. I hope you entered an equally effective shot in the challenge.
On second thought, maybe I don't, considering I have an entry in this challenge...
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 03:24:23 PM · #133 |
Hi again. Here's one for the distant subject.
And another for the framed. Does the fact that it's not a landscape make it inappropriate for this thread?
Punam |
|
|
|
10/09/2005 10:59:31 PM · #134 |
Still haven't done a framed subject, and haven't gotten a distant subject one that I think will pass muster this week, so I dug this out from about 3 weeks ago.
I did quite a bit of playing in post, I still have some learning to do there. :-)
Anyway, here's my distant subject shot:
 |
|
|
|
10/10/2005 12:52:11 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by punamkumar:
Hi again. Here's one for the distant subject.
And another for the framed. Does the fact that it's not a landscape make it inappropriate for this thread?
Punam |
Since this is "landscape/natural light", the framed shot seems perfectly appropriate to me anyhow. And an intrigiuing shot it is, too, with its oddly asymmetrical dark masses. The cloud shot works for me as well.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2005 12:54:23 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by tsheets:
Still haven't done a framed subject, and haven't gotten a distant subject one that I think will pass muster this week, so I dug this out from about 3 weeks ago.
I did quite a bit of playing in post, I still have some learning to do there. :-)
Anyway, here's my distant subject shot:
|
This is an intriguing shot. Fits the "assignment" nicely. I'm not sure the (apparently) artificial lightening of the spots on the foreground grass is working to your advantage here, though.
R.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2005 01:22:22 PM · #137 |
NEXT ASSIGNMENT
So far we've explored "landscape without subject" to show that in landscape photography we don't always have to have a single, identifiable "subject" in our shots to make a strong image; the landscape itself, in its entirety, can be your subject, and landscapes lend themselves to a certain level of abstraction as well, the interplay of light, texture, and color.
We've explored "landscapes organized around a dominant focal point", the more conventional approach, where some element of the photo is the central (or dominant) compositional element that ties everything together. This dominant element will not necessarily be the "subject" of the shot, but it wills serve as a visual anchor to tie things together.
We've looked at "landscapes framed by foreground objects", which are essentially a variant of the "dominant focal point" category, where the framing is used to provide visual order tot he composition.
Finally, we've looked at "landscapes dominated by distant subject", which are related to in an odd way to "landscapes without subject" in the sense that they tend, also, to be broad views of things without a lot of foreground action to hold us, but they distinctly "have" subjects, in the sense that a viewer would say "Oh, that's a picture of (whatever)!" instead of "Oh, that's a nice landscape-with-(whatever)!". It's sometimes a subtle distinction, and perhaps a meaningless one, except that I want you thinking in categories so you begin to consciously vary the way you approach these shots.
So, your next assignment:
Landscapes Dominated by Foreground Subjects
These will most commonly be extreme wide angle shots, although they don't have to be. What we're looking for here is to find something in a landscape that is your true subject, and use a well-chosen point of view to integrate this dominant subject into the broader landscape. We're doing this topic now, as much as anything, because the current member challenge is "wide angle", but it was next on the list anyway...
Remember, you're looking to make shots that are heavily biased towards the foreground, and the foreground needs to hold you in, BE the subject. But ideally these shots would have a good slice of the broader landscape to orient the viewer int he photographer's environment, and the image would ideally suffer badly if it were cropped down to "just" the subject, eliminating the context.
   
All of the above pretty much use this approach to greater or lesser degree. Which shots use it most obviously, and which are borderline (and why)? Which shot(s) show the approach can be used without wide angle?
(The Provincetown Marsh image is one of my earliest digital shots, and the noise/post-processing artifacts are locked in because I didn't know about working on copies of the original, LOL. But I still like the shot.)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-10-10 14:23:03.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2005 01:57:18 PM · #138 |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:21:12 AM · #139 |
Thanks for the new assignment!
Both of these are borderline IMHO; I don't see how the marsh demonstrates it--IMHO I'd call it a landscape without subject (so nothing to dominate). (And by the way, this one is the most impressionistic and therefore my favorite of the set!)
That being said, here are some quick examples from my DPC portfolio that I think demonstrate it:
   
Ok, now you can tell me that I'm wrong ;)
Message edited by author 2005-10-11 02:29:47.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 12:23:43 PM · #140 |
Within the limits I've described there's no "right" or "wrong" in these pictures, just shades of classification. And of course classification per se doesn't really matter, does it? The end result is what matters.
What the images have in common is a "part" in the foreground that interested me and a "context" in which I placed it, so to speak. They are all foreground-dominated images to some degree. As opposed to the last assignment, which was supposed to be distance-dominated. I deliberately included only one image that was in-your-face foreground dominated, the cabin top on the sand.
I'd agree that the Provincetown Marsh is right on borderline for "without subject", it's very close to having the feeling of an abstraction. Oddly, it's the lighthouse that keeps it from that category IMO. Indeed, some would argue that the lighthouse is the SUBJECT there, never mind that it is so distant and small. For me the marsh texture & detail is enough of a subject to keep this in the foreground-dominated category, though, but that's a personal evaluation. Same evaluation applies tot he "fences" shot; it's not-quite-an-abstract.
Neil, your two grass shots float in another gray area, where some might actually see the grasses as framing, not subject, or as scale elements. The shallow depth of field tilts the balance away from framing to subject-oriented, but only slightly. The two rock shots are clearly "foreground subject" shots, yup. I expected some of those from you :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 06:22:56 PM · #141 |
Here is a shot that I think meets the framing assignment:
 the bullrushes and grasses frame the pond which is my dominant feature.
As for the pics you posted bear, I tend to agree with the comments made by nshapiro and palmetto_pixels. IMO, the grasses in nshapiro's shots make as much of a foreground subject as the water or snow fence in bear_music's shots but as Robert said...it is a subjective interpretation of a gray area isn't it and it is certainly making me think a lot more about how I shoot!
editted to remove thumb...sorry bear, guess we know why the Tree Trunk was screamin' (she says sheepishly). Will re-edit and repost.
... Posted new shots instead of reposting this one
Message edited by author 2005-10-19 10:01:53. |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 06:28:05 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by rsm707:
As for the current assignment:
 my "personified tree trunk" is the dominant focal in the foreground...too bad I couldn't get back there for the challenge timeframe...8-)
|
Hey man, do us and yourself a favor and level up your horizon on this shot and repost it? This is so far off it's maddening.
Not to be a bitch or anything, but...
R.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 07:52:37 PM · #143 |
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:
 
Landscape organised around a dominant focal point:
 
Dominant distant subject:
Framed by foreground objects:
 
Dominated by foregroung subject:
   |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 09:35:56 PM · #144 |
   
I am really enjoying this thread and would ike to contribute if I may.
--JR |
|
|
|
10/13/2005 05:23:23 AM · #145 |
I'm glad everyone's having fun, but let's move on to the current assignment eh? Landscape Dominated by Foreground Subject is the name of the current game. Nshapiro has a LOT of what I'm talking about in his "Acadia" folder here
I hope he won't mind me linking to one:
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/13/2005 10:32:51 AM · #146 |
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:
Message edited by author 2005-10-17 22:15:48. |
|
|
|
10/13/2005 11:56:51 AM · #147 |
ok so i'm roped in also, this is a cool thread... does this count its just something i have in my Portfolio
(ignor the copywrite i was goofing around trying to mess with type and that stuff)
or are the trees not considered to be a foreground subject
*maybe these, just rediscovered them....-
 
*edit addition of other 2 shots that might applie
_bran(hmmm.... this is good learning for wide angle)do_
Message edited by author 2005-10-13 12:03:57.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2005 02:25:04 PM · #148 |
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 |
|
|
|
10/16/2005 07:02:37 PM · #149 |
Here is one for the "Landscapes Dominated by Foreground Subjects " assignment
 |
|
|
|
10/17/2005 01:34:57 AM · #150 |
| I'm gonna have to find something for this assignment. The one I got this weekend is similar enough to my current wide angle entry that I'll have to hold off posting it. |
|
