Rattlesnake Lake

[jeeperman]

Headed out the door for coffee this morning and maybe a quick stop down the road from home. Nope the fog was heavy and I needed some sun. Needless to say....I kept going. I stopped in at a lake in the North Bend area...up I90 east of Seattle, before continuing on to Twin Falls Trail head. C&C always welcome.

[Jack R Mann]

Thanks for the reminder of home, i used to live about 1/4 mile from rattlesnake, nice pics.

[Mike Buckley]

The last one presents a really special juxtaposition of life-giving water and dead trees. That photo is so nice that I hope you'll explore the scene in different weather, light, perspectives, compositions, etc.

[dje]

All great shots Paul but I prefer the simplicity of the first. The colours and the cloud are just magic.

Dave

[jeeperman]

Thanks Jack...me too, but many years ago as a child.

Mike, thank you. I will surely go back. This is a watershed....while we can fish it, it is actually drinking water. Adds to the life giving bit.

[Jack R Mann]

I went to mt si high, in snoqualmie paul. 1966 class

[jeeperman]

Ya might have a year or three on me there Jack. I was at Juanita High in Kirkland class of 86' In 66...mom was still hoping she wasn't pregnant for another couple years yet. =} I spent some time in the mid 70's there in North Bend.

[GVincent]

Great shot’s paul. The first one stands out for me, really is a stunning shot.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Paul,

Lovely conditions.

It is the first for me too.

With the other two, especially #3, I feel the stumps are blocking the view (of the shore line).

I would have tried shooting a little higher, so we can see the shoreline just above the top of the near stump.

I may also be developing a theory (for myself) that one foreground object is enough, any more and the compete too much.

Do I detect the use of a polariser?
Personally, I'd shoot this (fairly WA) scene without, but tend toward under-exposing in order to retain the saturation in the sky.
I could be mistaken and the lighter sky on right is being caused by 'atmospherics'.

All that said, my last attempt at something like this looks pale in comparison.

HTH,

[Mike Buckley]

Having seen a couple comments about the images, I'd like to provide my thinking this time in greater detail to offer what seems to be a different take on things. While I agree that the first image is the nicest, it's also the most ordinary. Its composition has the least potential for engaging the viewer in a special way unless the sky and its reflection in the water display special sunrise or sunset colors.

For me, the role of the stump in the second photo is not obvious; is it intended to be the subject or to simply provide foreground interest? For those who share those feelings of ambiguity with me, the quality of the photo is seriously lessened.

In my mind, the last photo has by far the most potential. The stumps are clearly the subject for me rather than serving the role of providing foreground interest. However, there are two points of unsatisfying collision -- where the top of the stump on the left collides with the shoreline and where the top of the stump on the right collides with a relatively busy area of the distant mountains. Dave suggests changing the perspective by shooting from a higher position to reveal all of the shoreline. That would of course solve that problem by providing a plain background for the stumps. Another solution is to shoot from a lower position to ensure at least that the top of the stump on the right uses the sky as the background (hopefully a plain area of the sky as in this photo). However, when making that decision, Paul would also need to make sure the tops of the other stumps are in positions that seem to be enhanced by the background rather than to be colliding with it. Shooting from a lower position might provide a more dramatic, somewhat less ordinary perspective.

[Didace]

I really like these. Well done.

I think 2 and 3 could really be great and was going to write something like this

In my mind, the last photo has by far the most potential. The stumps are clearly the subject for me rather than serving the role of providing foreground interest. However, there are two points of unsatisfying collision -- where the top of the stump on the left collides with the shoreline and where the top of the stump on the right collides with a relatively busy area of the distant mountains. Dave suggests changing the perspective by shooting from a higher position to reveal all of the shoreline. That would of course solve that problem by providing a plain background for the stumps. Another solution is to shoot from a lower position to ensure at least that the top of the stump on the right uses the sky as the background (hopefully a plain area of the sky as in this photo). However, when making that decision, Paul would also need to make sure the tops of the other stumps are in positions that seem to be enhanced by the background rather than to be colliding with it. Shooting from a lower position might provide a more dramatic, somewhat less ordinary perspective.

But now I don't have to. Mike sums up my thoughts nicely. I think the same type of thinking could apply to #2 as well.

I also think there's a monotone somewhere in 2 and 3.

[Wavelength]

#1 lacks it; #3 is having it too heavily; #2 is having it just right...the foreground object
That was from a critical point of view
emotionally i am addicted to this series as a whole

[kdoc856]

I think this is a very helpful thread. I find it a HUGE, (and one I dont feel I've yet developed a good approach to) challenge to determine the proper placement, perpspective and prominence of foreground objects, i.e. when do they distract and when do they add. I think it's truly part of the art rather than a rule-applicable approach. I hope this thread continues,and perhaps some links to the professionals' views might be offered. I think I've got a lot to learn about this.

[jeeperman]

Thank you everyone, for your input. Certainly some interesting views and plenty to think about on a return visit.

[Bobobird]

Amazing scenery. I should move to the West coast.

I the series and the last one best.

[jprzybyla]

Well done Paul. Nice images, beautiful scenery. I am not sure which you do best birds or landscape, guess a good photographer can do both.

[jeeperman]

Thank you Bobo and Joe, much appreciated.

Dave, I forgot to answer you on the CPL. Yes there is use of one showing but it is a mix of that and the light on the right. The sun was just over the ridge on the right and reflecting some off the snow. My vignette coverd some but it is still there.