| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2005 01:59:30 PM · #1 |
Let's see if we can get this one back on track, then.
So far we have discussed (under my tutelage, at least) the various "types" of light (raking, strong, back etc) and what effect they have on our images, and how the choice of light is the single most important tool in the landscape/natural light photographer's bag. We've also suggested that you take an existing landscape shot and "zoom in" by cropping it, as a way of illustrating that you can sometimes generate a stronger sense of the whole by limiting how much of it you are looking at.
For your Next Assignment:
********************
Landscape Without Subject
It's a common "rule" that a landscape or seascape "needs" a "subject" in order to be effective. Shooters are told to include a "foreground object" for scale and visual interest, or at the least be sure there is some dominant feature in the landscape that draws our eye and keeps us engaged. While this is generally good advice, it's not an absolute requirement. Sometimes the inclusion of common compositional aids draws our attention away from the simpler, more engaging aspects of the light or the scene. It's perfectly possible to take wonderful landscapes with NO definable subject; or, rather, where the entire image IS the subject.
This can be particularly effective when texture, or subtle color, or interplay of light/surface is compelling our attention. The following images tend to be "subjectless" in that sense, concentrating on light and/or texture at the expense of conventional compositional devices:
    
That's not to say these images have NO subject; for example, in the next-to-last one the fishermen might be seen by some as the "subject", and in the last one the fences might be considered the "subject", but in both cases the dominant feature of the image is the light, and the landscape is the canvas on which the light is working.
Have at it folks; let's see some "broad canvas" landscapes without subjects.
Robt.
We currently encourage any interested DPCers to join in and participate. If we get too big (seems unlikely) we can always prune later.
You can follow the previous "Natural Light" thread here.
You can follow the previous "landscape" thread here.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 14:08:40.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:07:17 PM · #2 |
i'm fond of this shot. nothing too special, but for some reason i like it. i think it's how the image makes the water appear to be moving. well it actually was moving, but it appears to be in this still image as well
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:15:04 PM · #3 |
My humble offerings are as follows.....
I hope i understood the point to this thread ok .. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:18:16 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by soup:
i'm fond of this shot. nothing too special, but for some reason i like it. i think it's how the image makes the water appear to be moving. well it actually was moving, but it appears to be in this still image as well
|
That's a nice capture, and it has many things going for it. However, look at it critically and notice this: as far as area covered goes, the water dominates. As far as visual interest goes, the sky's in control. This begs the question, "Would this image work better if it were 2/3 sky and 1/3 water?"
I'm not sure that what's happening in the lovely, subdued texture of the water can support the overpowering, ominous mass of sky above it. In any case, if you really want the water to be the controlling element, try cropping a fair chunk of sky off and watch what that does to the dynamic of the shot. Also consider working with levels and such in the foreground to pick up a little MORE texture in the water.
In general, for this sort of shot you want the disparate elements to carry more-or-less equal "weight" in the whole. For example, in my blue "fishermen" shot there are two zones, sky and water, and they carry equal visual weight; they don't compete. Or look at the "fence" shot; see how the very strong, saturated blue of the sky brings more strength/weight into that smaller area, balancing the much larger area of raking light/texture in the foreground? Out of the camera that sky is washed out, and the image sort of peters out into nothing.
Robt.
added: and, of course, one could imagine the same shot with much less water and a lot more sky, but I'm goung by your initial description, which indicated you liked the sense of movement on the water, and taking it that your goal is a shot OF the water.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 14:22:26.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:20:18 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by alionic:
I hope i understood the point to this thread ok .. |
Yes, very much so. I don't have time to critique all these right now but I'll be back to do so.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:26:53 PM · #6 |
more sky here than landscape, but I thought I'd have a stab at the no subject idea, or landscape without foreground object. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 02:46:47 PM · #7 |
well i appreciate the in depth critique there, and wasn't expecting that. if i remember correctly the sky closer to the foreground was pretty flat - solid clouds, lacking the sun rays seen in the distant sky. my aim in composition was to capture as much of the sun rays as possible, and document the very popular swimming and boating sand bar area as seen off season. so i guess my goal with this image was two fold.
i shot it with the 105mm macro beacuse it captured the distant details better than the 50mm. i have shots taken with the 50mm lens from the same day backed up on disc somewhere.
thanks
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 03:02:45 PM · #8 |
Do you want us to shoot a new one, or submit one we already have. I'll try to do both, but we don't have too much sweeping scenery here, and the weather and light's been the pits. But in the meantime, I think this one from last Oct fits the assignment description to the tee:
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 11:58:43 AM · #9 |
here is another one of my previous entries that didn't fair too well in voting that i happen to like. just keeping the thread alive ;}
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 12:59:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Do you want us to shoot a new one, or submit one we already have. I'll try to do both, but we don't have too much sweeping scenery here, and the weather and light's been the pits. But in the meantime, I think this one from last Oct fits the assignment description to the tee:
|
This shot fits the assignment to a tee. There's no definable "subject" except the landscape-as-a-whole, and more particularly the LIGHT that is informing the landscape with grandeur & grace. It's a gentle image, a contemplative image, an image without a visceral "wow" factor but one that draws the viewer in and will never cease to please.
This is what I'm often looking for when I shoot landscapes.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2005 01:05:36 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by phreakon:
more sky here than landscape, but I thought I'd have a stab at the no subject idea, or landscape without foreground object. |
While this shot has a large area of "nothingness" (the sky) it doesn't really represent what we're looking for, because there's nothing THERE to commend our attention; it's just featureless blue. A nice blue, but featureless nonetheless. In fact, in the nature of this shot you actually DO have a subject; the city skyline lower right. The weight of all that empty sky just forces us down there, and we focus all our ultimate attention on that skyline.
It's actually an interesting shot, really. You definitely need to level the horizon on this one. You can do it by rotating/cropping or, if that cuts off too much of the buildings you can try photoshop's "skew" command instead. The shot would have qualified nicely for the "minimalism" challenge.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-09-18 13:06:50.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:31:11 AM · #12 |
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.
Message edited by author 2005-09-20 00:35:00. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:40:40 AM · #13 |
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. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 06:49:09 AM · #14 |
I happened to see this thread and though not officially a part of this mentored group, would like to add this shot, if I may.
Cheers,
Owen
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:52:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by phreakon:
more sky here than landscape, but I thought I'd have a stab at the no subject idea, or landscape without foreground object. |
While this shot has a large area of "nothingness" (the sky) it doesn't really represent what we're looking for, because there's nothing THERE to commend our attention; it's just featureless blue. A nice blue, but featureless nonetheless. In fact, in the nature of this shot you actually DO have a subject; the city skyline lower right. The weight of all that empty sky just forces us down there, and we focus all our ultimate attention on that skyline.
It's actually an interesting shot, really. You definitely need to level the horizon on this one. You can do it by rotating/cropping or, if that cuts off too much of the buildings you can try photoshop's "skew" command instead. The shot would have qualified nicely for the "minimalism" challenge.
Robt. |
Thank you for your comments Rob, as always, much appreciated. The horizon is curved in the picture, so rotating it won't help. However, I did not think to try to fix it with skew. Great idea, and thanks. I was in fact going for a minimal look to the photo. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 02:36:33 PM · #16 |
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. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 03:08:48 PM · #17 |
My attempt as my only recent landscape shot.
Somewhere in Skye
Pretty poor but i was just messing with photoshop to darken/warm-up my sky a little as i didn't have any filters at the time. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 03:14:46 PM · #18 |
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. |
rsm, I think that's a nice shot. One thing I am curious about. On the near edge of the field, it looks like it is actually the edge (maybe going to a ditch or roadside??). Do you think this edge adds an an element of interest, or would be better if you were closer in, and didn't actually see the edge? I can't decide. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:18:04 PM · #19 |
I really like this approach. I find it to be less restrictive, more abstract and have more emphasis on color and light.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:34:42 PM · #20 |
You folks are producing some interesting shots, nearly all of which are on-topic even :-) I'm distracted with guests right now so I don't have time to comment seriously, but I'll be back shortly.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:35:29 PM · #21 |
Here are a few of mine...
   
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:36:37 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by phreakon:
Thank you for your comments Rob, as always, much appreciated. The horizon is curved in the picture, so rotating it won't help. However, I did not think to try to fix it with skew. Great idea, and thanks. I was in fact going for a minimal look to the photo. |
Curved or not, it's still wildly off horizontal and it is hurting your image. The curvature we could deal with, but this is borderline bizarre :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:40:09 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by orussell:
I happened to see this thread and though not officially a part of this mentored group, would like to add this shot, if I may.
Cheers,
Owen |
Owen, There are a few things here that I think support this shot with no specific subject. I like the way the clouds loosely mirror the treeline. The reflections in the water, which is almost dried up also adds interest. I also like the way the light is peeking through across the pond, lighting that area more than most of the rest of the frame. On the flip side, at least on my un-calibrated monitor, all but the sky looks a little dark. Bumping it a little brighter and pushing the saturation up little, specifically in the yellow channel, really helps bring out some of the details around the pond and intensifies the light across the other side. Again, could just be my monitor.
Edit: On my monitor at home, it looks *much* brighter/better. I guess the one at work is really dark.
Message edited by author 2005-09-20 23:51:00. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 07:10:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by tsheets:
...
rsm, I think that's a nice shot. One thing I am curious about. On the near edge of the field, it looks like it is actually the edge (maybe going to a ditch or roadside??). Do you think this edge adds an an element of interest, or would be better if you were closer in, and didn't actually see the edge? I can't decide. |
Thanks for the comments. It is the side of the road. I cropped it close enough to eliminate the road out of the pic, but not so close that it didn't let me use the rule of thirds for the horizon line. If I had changed shooting angles, I wouldn't have been able to capture the clouds. The only way to eliminate the roadside growth would have been for to walk into the farmer's field. I kind of like the extra color band myself.
Message edited by author 2005-09-20 22:54:15. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 07:34:32 PM · #25 |
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. |
I like the DOF in this shot and the three distinct coloured elements, the yellow of the flowers, the deep rich green of the trees, and the blue of the sky. I tend to find my eye examining each element separately as opposed to looking at the picture as a whole, which in this case isn't a bad thing. Very nice.
|
|
