Last edited by carregwen; 28th March 2010 at 05:18 PM.
Rob
You seem to have removed the 3rd one. Notice is saying it's unavailable.
In the first one I think you've got the shutter speed spot on. A lovely image.
The second is a dramatic image. When I first looked at them, I wasn't so keen on the 2nd. But now, having taken a moment and reassessed, I believe it is excellent. It's an image that demands some attention, not just a fleeting 'Oh that's very nice' and move on. It's packed full of drama. Love it.
Rob
The third image is a cracker. It has a really nice charcoal drawing effect and shows the power of the water off wonderfully.
Nowt like Betsy on a rainy day
Excellent captures Rob, only criticism is that I would like to view larger versions (perhaps min 1100 wide) - even the lightbox ones are only slightly larger than the embedded ones. Also what is causing the discolouration of the central fall in the first one (nice effect whatever it is)?
You have nailed the shutter speed perfectly to get these lovely images. Far too often, photographers use too slow of a shutter speed and the moving water ends up looking like cotton candy.
Nice work Rob..I do have a question about your Swallow Falls pic (pic # 1). I find my eyes wandering to the dead branches in the top right corner. Do you think that the branches add emphasis to the image? Just curious
Once again your image # 3 (Welsh Water #2) has piqued my curiosity. I'm guessing you've taken multiple shots; by any chance would you happen to have a horizontal shot of # 3? I'd be interested to see that if you have it.
Nice work! Thanks for sharing!!
Sai
Last edited by Sai C; 28th March 2010 at 10:53 PM. Reason: Deleted comment about coloring in the first image
Yes. The third is the best image. Very nice Rob
I must be different because I like the first, don't know about the colours though. Close up as in the third, it's not landscape and doesn't matter where it was taken. But maybe I'm being a little unfair because I expect a landscape to look identifiable, sure looks like it was taken in a landscape but could be anywhere.
I saw competition entries for a local rag for images of the locality, I didn't see many photo's of the locality but did see a lot of macros of insects and flowers; the point is just saying it's round here doesn't mean it is, and that is the reason I prefer the top one over the others. The top is a landscape the others abstract possibly still life but certainly I wouldn't recognise them if I were there.
They are all excellent quality though.
In number two you've caught an ancient, bearded Welsh Water spirit beckoning to us with his hands. Ever since that missile launcher, I've been seeing things!
Lovely photos, Rob.
Myra
I must confess do tend to take a pretty broad view of what constitutes a landscape, as do some other photographers. I suppose most people would probably think of a 'view' - a scene that is recognizable. I tend to think if it's part of the 'land' then it counts. But then I don't like labels very much! I'd be interested to hear what others think a landscape is.
I did think of shooting it closer in, but thought the branches added some context to the setting. I'm not sure about the colours either. I might do it again.
No, I only took one shot. Don't have a horizontal, I'm afraid. I was perched on some temporary scaffolding (where I wasn't allowed) across the water. It was slippery, getting dark, cold, my wife was complaining, and my CF card was about to fill up. Problems, nothing but problems.
What wonderful timing that this issue should emerge on here at this time, said the man who's reading Ansel Adams', 'Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs' 1983, Little, Brown & Co, Boston. Because what he says in relation to the making of 'Base of Upper Yosemite Fall' (1950), just resonated so strongly and so loudly. It was like a lighbulb coming on.
"The longer I worked in Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada, the more convinced I became that the inclusive landscapes - striking as many undoubtedly are - may not interpret the direct excitement and beauty of the mountain world as incisively as sections, fragments, and close details, which are available in infinite number if the photographer will carefully observe."
As I say, when reading this it just made so much sense. Rob said the exact same thing in another way - he's clever too!
Last edited by Donald; 29th March 2010 at 04:22 PM.
Yes you are right Donald; in the context of the top photo it is a landscape. For instance if it was on display in a gallery with the wonderful top photo it adds to the general sense of power and awe of the water; but on its own it is an abstract photo and I don't think it qualifies as a landscape.
In a collection of the same place it does on its own no, but I thought I was expected to judge each individually as others have.
So now I will judge them as a collection and say they are fabulous; still not sure about the colour though.
Yeah, right, what he said! Actually, that is what I was trying to say. A landscape is made up of parts, even though we love to see it as a whole, and so shots of parts of the landscape are still landscape. I know the technical meaning of landscape is of a wider view of the whole, but hey! we are photographers - we can make it up as we go along.