My usual stuff

[lynnma]

I think I would like a critique on this shot.. I do a lot of this kinda thing cos I love it out there so.. I would like to hear serious comments on it's compostion, content, quality etc. I guess I'm trying to capture the "wildness" of the place.
Thanks.. I have by helmet on ready...

http://lynn.smugmug.com/photos/29003062-L.jpg

[wxwax]

Hmmm, I'm still trying to learn how to shoot a good landscape, Lynn, and I find it's a very different challenge, both in composition and in lighting.

I reckon a different time of day might have given you more dramatic lightning.

As for compo, do you thinker wider would have been a good thing? Give us a larger feel of the scene, with the running water being a smaller part of the overall image?

Just a thought, still trying to get a handle on it myself.

[4labs]

Lynn I am not the best crtiquer but I'll give it a go. I think the right part of the scene is much more interesting. Would have zoomed in on teh running water or moved closer. For my taste if the sky doesn't have something going on like cool clouds or if it is really blue I would leave it out...

[digismile]

I too struggle with landscapes. For me, the photo lacks depth, very 2D. I'm sure that in real life the view was spectacular.

I read somewhere (maybe on dgrin), that landscapes need to have a distinct foreground, a middle ground, and a background. A more noticable DOF would give the illusion of 3D to the eye and I think improve the shot. You could also use Andy's trick of blurring the water, which would also give the 3D feel.

Keep the wonderful landscapes coming,

Regards,
Brad

[TrishB]

I learned something a while back from other helpful photographers; not all "Landscaptes" have to be in landscape format. You captured the details beautifully! http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/thumb.gif The lighting could have been less harsh though. No sense in pronouncing a great photograph when Photoshop can make up for what nature didn't provide at the time. I took the liberty of playing with your image a bit and came up with this. (It's already deleted from my hard drive, so don't worry.) http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/rolleyes1.gif

Tell me what you think...http://www.digitalgrin.com/images/smilies/ne_nau.gif

Again, wonderful details!

[David_S85]

What works for me... Subject matter. No doubt, it's a beautiful scene. The balance is about right, the color and levels are right, and the overall mood is right. Your colors always seem to pop, as they do in this shot. That's good for scenes like this.

What doesn't work well for me... It's busy. There are many subjects here, and they're all competing for the spot for my eye to land upon. The scene itself is acting like one subject, which sometimes can work, but here there really needs to be a main subject or two within the framing, and I don't immediately know what that would be.

The water and it's movement. The little waterfall is well placed for thirds rules, but the outflow is coming right at the viewer. For some reason, that is a little disturbing in a photograph. Water flowing from one part of a scene, and across a photo towards one corner usually works nicer, and illicits a more natural and peaceful viewer experience. There was several pages about water flow in photos about a year ago in either Peterson's or Pop Photo. Good read, actually, since the concept can be applied to more than water (such as people walking through a large building, or car lights in night scenes, etc.)

Dead tree's branches reaching into the shot in the upper left corner doesn't add anything and should be cropped or cloned out (pruned?)

[amunsie]

I would echo most of the other comments:


The colors are fantastic. You have really brought out the subtle, earthy colors
It does seem a bit busy. That could be a couple things - the image may be a tad bit over sharpened. Also, it is the curse of digital cameras less than 12MP. When you get so much detail in a scene, the CCD/CMOS just can't resolve the detail.


Personally, I've given up on landscapes like this until Olympus comes out with 12+ MP.

Another interesting idea would be to use a polarizer. Either that or a different time of day.

Overall, though, this is a very nice image.

[luckydog]

My 2 cents worth :)


The colours are wonderful and it's easy to see why you took the photo, but as others have said, it is way too busy with no single point of interest. I would even go so far as saying if you can reshoot the spot forget about the overflow of water all together. It's (to me) small and not dramatic enough even with a longer exposure. I found that just by scrolling my monitor untill the overflow was off the screen the shot improved a heap. The foreground is patchy and messy but above the overflow the colours blend in beautifully. Have a crop and have a look I say.
Apart from that I'm jealous as hell of you having such a beautiful foresty spot to photograph. :)

[ginger_55]

Just right off, Lynn. So glad you have not made any of these recently. I never did understand why you were doing it.

So now, I do understand: the Wildness! That is your subject.

I think your main problem has been subject, as in too many, or none, or what are you trying to tell us. Your passion for the wildness is not coming through.
IMO.

I would like to say that I do think scenics follow a lot of the same rules, suggestions, etc, as other subjects. So that is the first time I have ever disagreed with Sid.

I could show you bird photos where I really wanted to show you all the whole picture, what I am seeing out there, in total. Most of those shots don't work, IMO. I have only shown one. A long time ago.

So, to show the wildness??? I don't see wildness when I am in those places. Where do you see the wildness?

I hate to ask this, but could you explain that a bit.

The people who have helped you, by example, etc, it seems to me they have narrowed down a subject. As in the water. Water is often a good subject. So are trails, walkways. Interesting old things....... a particular tree, sometimes, trees are my waterloo. Lighting can be a very good subject as it filters thru lighting one particular area. Also framing, leading the eye into the photo to a SUBJECT. I think it just is coming back to the subject.

But your subject, in wanting to show wildness, it is almost the whole thing, but the whole thing is not working for you. Sooooooooooo
Why don't we think on it, I want some coffee. What would exemplify "wild" to you as a single subject when you are in the woods, or is it the totality?

ginger

[lynnma]

you guys are all great :lust every comment has a very valid point. I'ts amazing how much these critiques help. I think a lot of the time I fall in love with a place and try to capture it even tho it'sn not that good a scene? also the light was poor and I probably had a crappy lens on as well.. All the comments have helped me no end and of course now in hindsight I can "see" all the pitfalls.

To you ginger my love.. re the wild thing.. after sleepign out there with no one but the odd bear, moose etc it feels very "wild" as in wilderness, no houses, no people, no cars just trees and water and birds and silence and and who ever your god is or not.. just wonderful wild nature in all her fickle glory..:1drink

thanks again for taking the time to comment... gold indeed. :lust

[pathfinder]

I think I would like a critique on this shot.. I do a lot of this kinda thing cos I love it out there so.. I would like to hear serious comments on it's compostion, content, quality etc. I guess I'm trying to capture the "wildness" of the place.
Thanks.. I have by helmet on ready...

http://lynn.smugmug.com/photos/29003062-S.jpg


Lynn, I saw this image yesterday at work, and I do not trust that monitor for serious image evaluation. But now I'm at home. Scenes like these are hard if we are not very specific in what we want to show the viewer. The colors are good here and the detail is adequate even with 8 Mpixels :lol3 :lol3
But I think that the foreground is way too busy - crop about half way up, out to the waterline above the falls and I think the image improves considerably. Maybe even get above the falls and catch a reflection of the trees and hills in the water might work. Images of bare trees are difficult and require very crisp detail or just get busy and the viewer's eye gets lost in all the detail.

I think I was trying to capture a similar feeling when I shot this image with the pretty purple color last spring , but I don't think it has a good center to hold the viewer's interest; lots and lots of detail, but not engaging.
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/20403411-M.jpg