Landscape - interested in feedback

[terrib]

Occasionally, when I'm out shooting wildlife, I attempt to capture a landscape scene. I'm still not all that comfortable with my landscape work so I'd love your comments and opinions on this. I was struck by the calmness. Although it was mid-day I still liked the light, the reflections and the contrasts. The Cormorant flying in was not planned but I left him as I didn't really find him to be a distraction but a valid part of a peaceful lake scene. I'm not bothered by the centered horizon as the island breaks up the lower portion. But can I name a subject or do I have any nice leading lines? No. Does this mean I've failed?

[Mike Buckley]

Definitely not a failure. For me, it's the diffuse light and the bird that take the image to a much higher level than if either had been missing. Certainly a keeper.

For me, the primary subject is the group of trees and the secondary subject is the foreground vegetation. Even so, this is one of the rare scenes when perhaps the entire scene is the subject; the scene's elements complement each other to keep the eye from aimlessly wandering.

Having said all of that, this image really "sings" in black-and-white.

[csa mt]

Terri, that is so far from a failure!! It's absolutely beautiful, and the bird is an important part of the scene, for me. The clouds add a lot also, instead of a "blank sky". The calmness, subtle color changes really take this photo up the ladder!

[Kodiak]

Does this mean I've failed?

Terri, that's a hard one.

Yes it does! If you are asking the question… it's because you know it does. You
may not yet know why it is… so I'll try to figure it out.

You caught the bird doing the right thing at the right place in your frame. Now
you feel that this is not enough. —"If your shot is not good enough, you were
not close enough!"— …ever heard that one? Maybe you didn't have the time…
I understand that! …but if only you could have zoomed in… then you would not
even think of asking the question.

No it does not! The shot is perfect in every way. The only thing missing is drama!
These were perfect weather conditions but dawn or dusk dramatic light is missing!

It is not important for me to have seen correctly or not, I'm happy if I could
bring in some elements of answer or inspire you to a completely different
approach. Good luck!

[tbob]

Not a failure
I hope you don't mind but I did my interpretation as my verbal skills in description are not adequate to describe where I want to go. Please remove it if you don't want it or if my interpretation is off base.

In my opinion the problem is three fold.

1) The houses and urban area jar with the wild nature of the marsh/wetland. If you want it to be a nature landscape the human impact part must die.

2) The wonderful sky needs to be more prominent separated from the water colour. I darkened the sky to enhance the blue. Then increased the saturation and midtone contrast over the entire image to make the colour pop.

3) Still too many extraneous bits and I felt the three elements of sky, trees and vegetation island needed to be more prominent. The fortunate inclusion of the bird also needed to be taken advantage of. So a tighter crop.

In short a great image, I suspect you just need to zero in on what caught your eye before taking the shot.

[Polar01]

Terri not always easy to switch from one to the other on the fly so to speak. What I am going to suggest is take a look at where your eyes are drawn to, correct it is the lighter areas of the image, the foreground and sky. What is needed is something to keep the eyes for leaving the important elements of the image. I see you use LR4, what if you reduced the exposure say 2-stops or more than taking the, is it adjustment brush, set it for 2/3-stop more than what you brought the exposure down, (2 stops exposure decrease than using brush increase to 2-2/3 stops). This may help to keep the eyes from wandering out of the image. Again it is hard to adjust on the fly from one style to another, last fall shooting early morning mist up north, a moose slowly came down the hill, walked along the water's edge then went back up into the woods. Going from shooting long exposure landscape shots to critters well I made every mistake possible it was a comedy of errors one after another. I did get a shot of the moose though, it's butt as the trees closed around it.

Cheers: Allan

[pixel pete]

Hi Terri,
You're getting some very excellent advice here. One of the reasons experienced photographers seldom shoot when the sun is high up is because there is way too much depth-of-field even with a long lens at times. There is no chance of isolating your subject since the entire scene in front of you is lit up.

No matter which direction you walk around your subject, the background behind your subject is also lit the same. If you have a moment, read more about why picture-taking isn't easy when the sun is close to being directly overhead.

[FootLoose]

“Does this mean I have failed?”

I don’t think so; you just need a title to nudge the reader in the direction of your own thinking about the picture.

When I first looked at this shot, I had a similar reaction to Trevor – the houses in the background are incongruous with the wetlands scene, so clone a few of those trees on the right and use them to block the houses.

But as I continued to look and think about the image, that dead tree became a pivotal element for me: it marks the divide between the ‘natural’ setting and encroaching civilisation, and that becomes the subject of this photo. In fact, I would consider it a contemporary rendition of some 19th century landscapes in which the artists subtly depicted signs of civilisation in the background distance to indicated industrialisation and advancing modernity.

You have captured a beautiful scene in the foreground – a wetland oasis with a grassy island, nice reflections and an accommodating bird – sheltered a by fairly lush looking stand of trees, and all of this is threatened by the unrelenting creep of urban development.

To the right of that dead tree, the colours are not so bright and as the view recedes into the background – the mountains and sky – the colour becomes more washed out.

So, I wouldn’t crop at all. Instead I might think about adding a little saturation to the trees and the water to bring out the contrast between these elements and the background, but that’s about all.

[Stagecoach]

Terri, if it was mine I would not change it.

With the lighting, the interest and the way you have PPd it there is a certain 'delicacy' to it that we so rarely see these days in the era where we are constantly told to 'push the sliders'.

Grahame

[terrib]

Definitely not a failure. For me, it's the diffuse light and the bird that take the image to a much higher level than if either had been missing. .....

Having said all of that, this image really "sings" in black-and-white.

Well, in that case, the bird was totally planned. I must have waited at least an hour for the right one to show up. Seriously, thank you, Mike, for your comments. I'm always thrilled when my work pleases you. And, believe it or not, you guys have had an influence as I almost posted a B&W rendition. It did occur that the range of tones would make a good B&W image. But I know nothing of monotone conversion so I left that for another day.

[terrib]

Thank you, Carol, for you comments. I also liked the same things you noted so I'm glad you saw that too.

[terrib]

Kodiak, I've been mostly absent since you've joined, but I've noticed your participation and enjoy reading your take on things. It seems to me you are a teacher and I appreciate your response. Your are so right that if I'm asking, there is something wrong. But I will tell you that the bird was a nice accident. I was going for the landscape and when he showed up, I didn't even try to change course. I just decided on review to leave him in.

It's good to know that the composition might be worth revisiting in better light because composition is what I struggle with so thank you.

[terrib]

Trevor,
It is always ok to edit my stuff in the context of CinC and I really appreciate that you would take the time to do it. (I should add that to my signature, I know)

I really like your rendition and I like your explanation for why you made your changes. Your last statement says it all as to why yours and mine are so different. What caught my eye was the serenity, the calm lake, the mound of trees and also the mountains and the bird wasn't even in my thoughts. I like seeing your interpretation because it reminds me to really explore at the scene with tighter zooms. I still tend to see landscapes in wide angle.

[ShaneS]

Terri;

I like your delicate rendition and agree with Grahame in that regard. I wonder if a slight crop removing some from the bottom and right side to the edge of the red house would help. A quick clone/heal of the white trailer and you have almost removed the 'human element' from the scene.

I want to say that I don't dislike Trevor's version but it has a very different feel and that is where you as the photographer get to channel your inner artist (and if she's anything like mine she hides a lot ).

Just my two cents worth as I still struggle with these things as well.

[ShaneS]

Terri;

I like your delicate rendition and agree with Grahame in that regard. I wonder if a slight crop removing some from the bottom and right side to the edge of the red house would help. A quick clone/heal of the white trailer and you have almost removed the 'human element' from the scene.

I want to say that I don't dislike Trevor's version but it has a very different feel and that is where you as the photographer get to channel your inner artist (and if she's anything like mine she hides a lot ).

Just my two cents worth as I still struggle with these things as well.

[terrib]

Allan, thank you for your suggestions. My responses so far in this thread may seem like I'm not really open to suggestions so I want to say that I'm hoping for more discussion - I'm not closed at all. My initial thoughts on the image were like yours that I needed to darken the bright areas. But after trying that out, I decided that I really liked those areas the way they were. The photo naturally had a highlighted vignette that to me actually focused more on the main areas of the photo. And I also thought that it looked more natural that way. (Full disclosure, there is some bringing up of shadows and toning down of highlights and contrast and clarity)

So a point of discussion to me would be this. I'm not sure I always buy into the idea that our eyes wander out of the frame. And while I think that the golden hours give us the best chance of that dramatic light that Kodiak refers to, does that mean that we have to always tone down those bright highlights given to us at mid day? Is it not a rendition of what was there? Our eyes see bright reflections and lose detail in that light. But all that aside (because I tend to go the route suggested too) in this case the brightness around the edges seemed to actually focus my eyes inward rather than the opposite.

[terrib]

Thanks, Pete for the link. I will definitely take a look at it.

[Shadowman]

Landscape with trees are never easy to capture. Your image has good presentation, even if the trees are not your subject they look good enough to be.

[Nicks Pics]

I thought it was a pleasant picture. I don't have any problem with the daylight on scenes, it is pretty too. The houses are a little distracting, but that's all I would say about them. I often try a crop, but then when I look back at the full scene it often feels relieving. That is the case for me in this instance. A good distance often gives more atmosphere and a relaxing feel. Perhaps that is because in real life we like to be able to survey the whole shape/scene of what we're looking at.

[terrib]

Greg, Thank you for your response. I yearn for the day that I'm not lazy in the field and I actually see these things when I am shooting. I would like to say that all these things occurred to me at the time but I can't. However, everything you've said matches my thoughts as I decided how to process and crop the final image. At shooting, I saw the serenity, the mountains, the balance (or imbalance) of the clump of trees against the mountains and the nice reflections in the calm waters. I never even noticed the houses. But on processing, I did notice and had the same thoughts of serenity of nature vs urban encroachment.

Some day these things will occur to me while I'm there. Or maybe not. Either way, I'm enjoying the journey.