Untouched Beauty . . .

[Kathy O]

Just a couple more mountain photos, again these are very simple, sometimes simple is good!! Comments and advice are welcome!!

Kathy

[Daisy Mae]

Hi Kathy

I like the middle one..it has a good sense of balance .

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy

I like the middle one..it has a good sense of balance .

Thanks Daisy!! I can't decide which I like better -- decisions are hard for me!!

[JPS]

Hi Kathy,
yes, "simple is good" and on that basis you have 3 very good pictures.
Well done.

[Kathy O]

Hi Kathy,
yes, "simple is good" and on that basis you have 3 very good pictures.
Well done.

THank you John!

[FrankMi]

Hi Kathy, for me the rocky shoreline in the first image is so large that it is dominating the scene and competes too strongly with the mountains and lake. In the second image there is more of a restfull balance between the foreground, lake and mountains. The third one is a simpler scene on its own but in competition with the others doesn't have as much visual interest as the second one.

[kdoc856]

Hi, Kathy

I think the 2nd is your keeper. You have well defined fore, mid and backgrounds that give a nice visual (dynamic) depth. The third really has only a foreground and background, and Frank has nicely summarized the foreground imbalance of the first.

As the sky is featureless, you might try a crop of the 2nd to significantly reduce the sky, thereby enhancing the prominence of your other, more interesting elements.

[Donald]

Just a couple more mountain photos, again these are very simple, sometimes simple is good!! Comments and advice are welcome!!

You've just given yourself the best advice. As you and others have said - simple is good. Nature does quite well on her own at deciding what needs to be complex and what can be kept simple. We don't need to go and start messing that up.

Now, I'm going to be different ... if that's okay. I think the first of these is the strongest. Why?

I feel that the foreground in the second one is competing with the background, rather than being in harmony with it. I'm left feeling, 'Where is my attention meant to be?'.

I think the third one goes to the other end of the spectrum in that we have a powerful and dominant background, but no foreground of any interest at all. The feeling is that the effort went into hiding the foreground so that all there was in the image were the mountains.

I would like to suggest that the balanced, harmonious image is the first one. I think the line of the water's edge takes across and back through the image beautifully. There is enough interest in the foreground shoreline to make it a point of interest. That first strong change of direction on the shoreline at the right hand side gives the image a strong anchor point.

So, another point of view to ponder on.

[Mike Buckley]

Considering the difference of opinion about which image is the strongest, that pretty much indicates that none of them are weak. All of them have very attractive colors that are brilliant but appear natural, not overly saturated.

Yet another point to consider: The sky in each image is cloudless and devoid of interest. I would crop each image to leave just a little bit of the sky. Once you do that, consider the points made by the others regarding the remaining details. As an example, cropping the first one that way emphasizes the foreground details, which I think then become more attractive. (I suppose I'm siding with Donald about that image.) Cropping the last one emphasizes the large mountains, so in the end, that one becomes my favorite.

Notice the vignetting in the first image. It's most apparent in the corners of the sky. If you decide to leave so much sky in the image, be sure to eliminate the vignetting during post-processing.

[kdoc856]

Two considerations:

[MilT0s]

Simply is good, what a powerful idea! When I am shooting I keep repeating the motto I have included in my signature:

Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add but rather when there is nothing left to take away. (-Antoine de Saint-Exupéry).

I am with Donald, I prefer #2 for the same reasons. I also think that in Kevin's version the "textures" of mountains and forest are revealed better.

[Kathy O]

Two considerations:

Okay Kevin,
I like what you did with my photos, but what did you do and how did you do it????? Please share with me!! Thanks for your help!!

Kathy

[Kathy O]

You've just given yourself the best advice. As you and others have said - simple is good. Nature does quite well on her own at deciding what needs to be complex and what can be kept simple. We don't need to go and start messing that up.

Now, I'm going to be different ... if that's okay. I think the first of these is the strongest. Why?

I feel that the foreground in the second one is competing with the background, rather than being in harmony with it. I'm left feeling, 'Where is my attention meant to be?'.

I think the third one goes to the other end of the spectrum in that we have a powerful and dominant background, but no foreground of any interest at all. The feeling is that the effort went into hiding the foreground so that all there was in the image were the mountains.

I would like to suggest that the balanced, harmonious image is the first one. I think the line of the water's edge takes across and back through the image beautifully. There is enough interest in the foreground shoreline to make it a point of interest. That first strong change of direction on the shoreline at the right hand side gives the image a strong anchor point.

So, another point of view to ponder on.

Thanks for your comments Donald! When I look at the three photos together my eye always goes back to the first one . . . but I was beginning to think that I was the only one who thought that way! It's nice to have someone explain maybe why my eyes keep going back to the first photo. I sure appreciated everyones advice!! Thanks again!

Kathy

Kathy

[Mike Buckley]

Kevin,

I especially like that you eliminated the vignetting in the corners of the sky. However, at a glance both revisions appeared underexposed. I downloaded them to review their histograms, which confirmed my thinking, especially on your first revision.

[kdoc856]

Mike,

You are right. Although I have a tendency to prefer images a little on the dark side compared to many folks, that first one looks a good 1/3 to 1/2 EV under. Sometimes if I am in front of the screen long enough, my eyes seem to get a little haywire and I've got to look again after a break.

Kathy,
Mostly I want to emphasize the difference a small crop of the sky might make, As I recall, I just pulled up a gradient filter from the bottom to empasize and increase the contrast of the foreground.