scenery shots
Forum rules
Topics should be about experiences, comments, and observations from our members' personal lives.
Topics should be about experiences, comments, and observations from our members' personal lives.
Re: scenery shots
So ... what am I looking at. I love the clay tile roofs by the way.
Re: scenery shots
All that open space, yet the houses are touching each other. Hmmm...
Re: scenery shots
oh, sorry! i was hoping for comments on the photography! my bad. would you mind taking another look?
ok, the castle is a ruin a bit further south from here, used to an enormous and very popular place until the delightful french revolution...
the roof shot is from out skylight and across the village. what you see here, the round formation, used to be moat protected with a drop bridge right below the blue shutters on the half timbered house. the villages and towns are mostly perched on these funny hill tops, due the fortifications after the black prince went on an arson tour and nuked the entire countryside.
then there's saxon, of course and the valley towards the town of montréal and black mountains.
ok, the castle is a ruin a bit further south from here, used to an enormous and very popular place until the delightful french revolution...
the roof shot is from out skylight and across the village. what you see here, the round formation, used to be moat protected with a drop bridge right below the blue shutters on the half timbered house. the villages and towns are mostly perched on these funny hill tops, due the fortifications after the black prince went on an arson tour and nuked the entire countryside.
then there's saxon, of course and the valley towards the town of montréal and black mountains.
Re: scenery shots
A second and presumably more critical look from a non-professional ... it's always risky to ask for a critical review, but you DID ask:
TOP PICTURE
In a word, it's a nice picture, but frankly it's composition is boring. Initially it strikes my eyes as layers of muted colors that cause my eyes to scan left and right for something of interest. Oh, wait. There it is hidden betwixt the olive drab tree line and thin strata of yellow pasture. The traditional rule of thirds of photography is loosely applied in this picture but the composition is such my attention is focused on the overwhelming lack of interest in the background hillside. In other words the concept of a lonely house amid a vast countryside is lost in the layers of yellow and green. I had to go looking for it because it did not stand out and draw my attention to it immediately.
I'm thinking the interest factor could have been increased if the photographer stooped down or sat on the ground and placed that house in the lower third of the photo but viewed through soft focused shafts of wheat in the foreground. That shallow ground level angle would remove some of the distracting boredom in the background and make you want to peek past the out of focus golden vertical grass to see what's there. The house, of course. The fuzziness in the foreground and the low point of view would add some interest that is missing in the original.
MIDDLE PICTURE
Again a nice picture, not so boring as the first one. However, it appears as if Saxon photo-bombed an attempt to capture a lovely hillside. It's hard to say if the point of the picture is the landscape or the intruder in the blue shirt. This photo reminds me of Neapolitan ice cream; you know, that three more or less even layers of tricolor deliciousness that looks flat and layered but tastes great. The picture is way too balanced to create an interesting effect for the viewer. The same shot over Saxon's shoulder, for example, would have been more dramatic. Or, placing the young boy in blue on the same side of the frame as the tree would bring the rule of thirds into play vertically. That would break up the horizontal layer cake appearance. If you had a choice, the spot meter on your camera could have been on the sky. Perhaps that would underexpose most of the shot but emphasizing the fluffy clouds would add visual interest. It would have also made the tree a black shadow (instead of a dull olive green) against a gray sky. Good contrast.
BOTTOM PICTURE
The best was saved for last. Only one real critical point can be made here, and that is in regard to splitting the picture exactly through the middle. I'm not sure if I should be admiring the blue sky and white clouds, or the clay tiled roof tops gathered round in a circle. Personally I think the sky should have been sacrificed in favor of more emphasis on the architecture, but the beauty of both seems to be represented equally in that picture. And that is the only problem: two beautiful things in the same picture frame.
It's not always possible to create interest in the composition, especially when shooting landscapes. That's where post processing comes in handy. Photoshop could add or remove things you didn't think of when on the scene. Color filters and artistic effects can do wonders to a boring original. For example I'm thinking that top picture would look great as is in sepia. Hope this is what you were looking for.
TOP PICTURE
In a word, it's a nice picture, but frankly it's composition is boring. Initially it strikes my eyes as layers of muted colors that cause my eyes to scan left and right for something of interest. Oh, wait. There it is hidden betwixt the olive drab tree line and thin strata of yellow pasture. The traditional rule of thirds of photography is loosely applied in this picture but the composition is such my attention is focused on the overwhelming lack of interest in the background hillside. In other words the concept of a lonely house amid a vast countryside is lost in the layers of yellow and green. I had to go looking for it because it did not stand out and draw my attention to it immediately.
I'm thinking the interest factor could have been increased if the photographer stooped down or sat on the ground and placed that house in the lower third of the photo but viewed through soft focused shafts of wheat in the foreground. That shallow ground level angle would remove some of the distracting boredom in the background and make you want to peek past the out of focus golden vertical grass to see what's there. The house, of course. The fuzziness in the foreground and the low point of view would add some interest that is missing in the original.
MIDDLE PICTURE
Again a nice picture, not so boring as the first one. However, it appears as if Saxon photo-bombed an attempt to capture a lovely hillside. It's hard to say if the point of the picture is the landscape or the intruder in the blue shirt. This photo reminds me of Neapolitan ice cream; you know, that three more or less even layers of tricolor deliciousness that looks flat and layered but tastes great. The picture is way too balanced to create an interesting effect for the viewer. The same shot over Saxon's shoulder, for example, would have been more dramatic. Or, placing the young boy in blue on the same side of the frame as the tree would bring the rule of thirds into play vertically. That would break up the horizontal layer cake appearance. If you had a choice, the spot meter on your camera could have been on the sky. Perhaps that would underexpose most of the shot but emphasizing the fluffy clouds would add visual interest. It would have also made the tree a black shadow (instead of a dull olive green) against a gray sky. Good contrast.
BOTTOM PICTURE
The best was saved for last. Only one real critical point can be made here, and that is in regard to splitting the picture exactly through the middle. I'm not sure if I should be admiring the blue sky and white clouds, or the clay tiled roof tops gathered round in a circle. Personally I think the sky should have been sacrificed in favor of more emphasis on the architecture, but the beauty of both seems to be represented equally in that picture. And that is the only problem: two beautiful things in the same picture frame.
It's not always possible to create interest in the composition, especially when shooting landscapes. That's where post processing comes in handy. Photoshop could add or remove things you didn't think of when on the scene. Color filters and artistic effects can do wonders to a boring original. For example I'm thinking that top picture would look great as is in sepia. Hope this is what you were looking for.
Re: scenery shots
now, squeaki got a camera last year and i was looking through her pictures the other day and these were the ones that caught my eye. i was tempted to crop and such, but thought nope! i'll leave them exactly as they were found. she wants to be a photographer and as she was 11 when she took these with her cheap nikon, i think there's potential here, yes?
why not say they were hers? well, sometimes one tends to have a soft focus on a beginner...
Re: scenery shots
Re: scenery shots
They say it's a waste of money for most people to have a "good" camera. It's not the camera that takes good pictures. I do feel lost without all the adjustments on my main stream Nikon, but gadgets like smart phones take some excellent pictures these days.
All Squeeks has to do is read a few books and articles on how to take interesting pictures. I think she has the talent and just needs some practical experience in the field.
All Squeeks has to do is read a few books and articles on how to take interesting pictures. I think she has the talent and just needs some practical experience in the field.
Re: scenery shots
funny thing; squeaki's camera is a Coolpix L 340 and it does lovely videos, such as the baby swallow peering over its nest inside the dim barn; clear as a bell! (what bell is that, i wonder?), while my 3 years old nikon ... what is this sow...? yes, D5100 probably wouldn't do as well.
mine is also heavy and cumbersome to lug about, so often i just grab the phone and then curse myself for my laziness.
friday we'll go over your points, she's all looking forward to it, and thanks for your input!
Re: scenery shots
My inputs are limited due to a lack of expertise. But, some input is better than no input, I guess. Aside from learning the basics of composition, I think in today's digital world it's mandatory that the young photographer become familiar with photo editing. I'd not be surprised if she already has experience in those things. Most of the professional shots are touched up versions of the original. Candid photography is different and a certain amount of dissonance is what makes it interesting. But, a studio pro has to know more than simply how to compose a picture.