Red Canyon, Utah

[Twisties]

Comments and Criticism (C&C) Appreciated

 

 

 

 

 

[SageRider]

Only criticism I can offer is that you didn't call me to join you on your excursion .

 

Nice pics!

[EffBee]

Beautiful stuff. Makes me even more impatient for Spring Torrey.

 

Thanks for the nice photos.

[1MPH]

Comments: Beautifull.

 

Criticism: Not enough.

[Lets_Play_Two]

I like the pictures, but find myself wanting the rocks to "pop" more. Personally, except for the second one, I would crop the foreground more.

[Redbrick]

WHOA ............Great pics Jan..........Really sharp and deep color...

[Twisties]

I like the pictures, but find myself wanting the rocks to "pop" more. Personally, except for the second one, I would crop the foreground more.

 

Interesting, I was afraid they were too intense as is. It's pretty easy to add some "pop".

 

I'll look at some crops. I liked the contrasting colors of the foreground plants, but it's a good idea to look at some tighter crops.

 

Thanks Bill, appreciate your comments.

 

 

[Paul_Burkett]

I like the way that you changed to a simplified name for your copywrite, it was too much of a distraction from what you were photographing.

[Twisties]

I like the way that you changed to a simplified name for your copywrite, it was too much of a distraction from what you were photographing.

 

Been on my "to do" list for a while now. It was awful. Lightroom doesn't allow any customization of the copyright notice, so I needed another piece of software to fix it. More work, as now each image has to go through another program, but worth it.

[David]

Let me ask a question to get you thinking. Would you say that these images, to you, are more representative of technical excellence or inspiration? In other words, do you look at them over and over with awe and get inspired to do more photography? What angle or use of light or DOF treatment has your stamp on it in these pictures so that I'm always amazed at how you "saw" something?

[Lets_Play_Two]

On a monitor at work I may not be seeing what you are with better color correction. What I see is flat and I don't get the benefit of much color contrast in the pictures, hence my crop comment,

[Twisties]

Let me ask a question to get you thinking. Would you say that these images, to you, are more representative of technical excellence or inspiration? In other words, do you look at them over and over with awe and get inspired to do more photography? What angle or use of light or DOF treatment has your stamp on it in these pictures so that I'm always amazed at how you "saw" something?

 

Those are the challenges of landscape, and why I think I am a poor landscape photographer. Because much as I would like to think otherwise, I see them as merely technically acceptable renditions of "I was there."

 

The really good landscape photographers are able to add that element of art. But, I am working on it.

 

Thanks for the comment. Very insightful.

[David]

That's a very self-aware comment. I find them challenging, too. Some of the things I try to do:

 

1) Walk to a vantage point that most people wouldn't bother to explore.

 

2) Take a landscape and divide it into sections and study each section to see what's interesting, if anything. Then put it all together, or maybe just select a portion. On our last shoot I noticed that Scott was really good at that, particularly at the double arch site and the church in that town.

 

3) After you've settled on a shot, try picturing some extremes: really high, really low, far to one side, etc.

 

I find the learning as much fun as the shooting.

[Twisties]

Let me ask a question to get you thinking. Would you say that these images, to you, are more representative of technical excellence or inspiration? In other words, do you look at them over and over with awe and get inspired to do more photography? What angle or use of light or DOF treatment has your stamp on it in these pictures so that I'm always amazed at how you "saw" something?

 

Those are the challenges of landscape, and why I think I am a poor landscape photographer. Because much as I would like to think otherwise, I see them as merely technically acceptable renditions of "I was there."

 

The really good landscape photographers are able to add that element of art. But, I am working on it.

 

Thanks for the comment. Very insightful.

 

For me, this one on Fred Miranda today rises to the call:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/880721

 

or maybe number 2 in this set:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/880914

 

or number 1 in this set:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/880777

 

Just examples of images that I think rise above technical rendition and reach to art.

 

[Twisties]

I find the learning as much fun as the shooting.

 

That's what it's all about for me.

[David]

For me, this one on Fred Miranda today rises to the call:

 

 

Yes! The ultimate test for me is this: do I want to keep looking at it? The only thing that makes me want to keep looking at a photograph is this: can I keep discovering interesting things about it. In your example, there's a sunset, silhouetted boats, a fascinating foreground to lend context to the distance, and all sorts of implied movement as the boats change places.

[Bob Palin]

I think I just quit taking photographs.

[Smoky]

Anybody want to look at my snapshots of my family around the Christmas tree???

[David]

Anybody want to look at my snapshots of my family around the Christmas tree???

 

 

Mine either. We're not talking about tourist pictures or family pictures to memorialize something. Jan's asking about the artistic side of photography.

[Couchrocket]

Jan,

 

The images you chose as examples of good work have several contributing factors. Those factors put their arms around what David is getting at, I think.

 

First - in each of them there is a pretty dramatic foreground / background relationship. Wide lenses were used in all these examples, but this kind of visual interest can be created with almost any focal length that suits the subject and photographer's eye. So, looking for such relationships as you explore a subject is one way to improve landscapes in particular.

 

 

Second - light and weather. In each, either the light, weather, or both is very very interesting and is a major component of the image and not merely incidental to it. My normal rule for landscape work is, be there before sunrise and work til the light begins to go flat - nap from mid morning until mid afternoon - be there from late afternoon until about 30 minutes after sunset. Add the dictum that bad weather makes good photographs and the odds of finding something compelling in a landscape goes up a lot. You won't make a lot of friends with this kind of schedule, but you'll make more great photos!

 

Third - composition. I've often said that a good composition is more about what you leave out than what you put in a photo. The bottom line is that the rules of composition are a good place to start. Read about leading lines, s-curves, rule of thirds, etc. In the images you posted the compositions are mostly flat, in that the lines are horizontal and run from one edge of the image and out the other side. Looking for leading lines in an image that take your eye from an edge, and draw it ino the composition would make your work take a giant leap very quickly. Here's one of mine with dramatic leadking lines. Not a great photo, but it illustrates what I'm tying to say:

 

 

And one of yours where the lines just go across the image:

 

 

Try to visualize how a change in position, framing elements, or something could have induced leading lines into your image that would draw the eye to the center of interest and try to hold it there.

 

 

The rules are made to be broken, but are better broken if done on purpose, for a purpose. The main idea is to keep the eye circulating within the photo. David's comment about having enough interest to keep coming back is related this. Not only does the content need to have interest, but the tonality, light, composition, etc., needs to keep the eye circulating in the image and not run off the edge of the page. Light and dark areas have as much to do with this as does the actual physical composition.

 

 

Fourth - post processing or developing in wet darkroom. No sensor or film behaves the way the human eye does. So managing the tonality in an image to achieve some of the above criteria is entirely legitimate in my view. There is no such thing as a literal photo. And even if there were it would only have been for some tiny fraction of one second and doesn't exist any more. So my advice is to feel as free as you like to create the tone and mood that your eye and brain appreciated, but that film or a sensor could not capture in one bite.

[Twisties]

Jan,

 

The images you chose as examples of good work have several contributing factors. Those factors put their arms around what David is getting at, I think.

 

First - in each of them there is a pretty dramatic foreground / background relationship. Wide lenses were used in all these examples, but this kind of visual interest can be created with almost any focal length that suits the subject and photographer's eye. So, looking for such relationships as you explore a subject is one way to improve landscapes in particular.

 

 

Second - light and weather. In each, either the light, weather, or both is very very interesting and is a major component of the image and not merely incidental to it. My normal rule for landscape work is, be there before sunrise and work til the light begins to go flat - nap from mid morning until mid afternoon - be there from late afternoon until about 30 minutes after sunset. Add the dictum that bad weather makes good photographs and the odds of finding something compelling in a landscape goes up a lot. You won't make a lot of friends with this kind of schedule, but you'll make more great photos!

 

Third - composition. I've often said that a good composition is more about what you leave out than what you put in a photo. The bottom line is that the rules of composition are a good place to start. Read about leading lines, s-curves, rule of thirds, etc. In the images you posted the compositions are mostly flat, in that the lines are horizontal and run from one edge of the image and out the other side. Looking for leading lines in an image that take your eye from an edge, and draw it ino the composition would make your work take a giant leap very quickly. Here's one of mine with dramatic leadking lines. Not a great photo, but it illustrates what I'm tying to say:

 

 

And one of yours where the lines just go across the image:

 

 

Try to visualize how a change in position, framing elements, or something could have induced leading lines into your image that would draw the eye to the center of interest and try to hold it there.

 

 

The rules are made to be broken, but are better broken if done on purpose, for a purpose. The main idea is to keep the eye circulating within the photo. David's comment about having enough interest to keep coming back is related this. Not only does the content need to have interest, but the tonality, light, composition, etc., needs to keep the eye circulating in the image and not run off the edge of the page. Light and dark areas have as much to do with this as does the actual physical composition.

 

 

Fourth - post processing or developing in wet darkroom. No sensor or film behaves the way the human eye does. So managing the tonality in an image to achieve some of the above criteria is entirely legitimate in my view. There is no such thing as a literal photo. And even if there were it would only have been for some tiny fraction of one second and doesn't exist any more. So my advice is to feel as free as you like to create the tone and mood that your eye and brain appreciated, but that film or a sensor could not capture in one bite.

 

Thanks Scott, that's outstanding advice, and an outstanding photo, IMHO.

 

These images are processed with photomatix hdr (tone compressor mode) and the tonality and mood are, I think, right to my eye. The issue is composition. You've given me a lot to think about. Fortunately, I like thinking, and practicing... and for better or worse, with digital practice is essentially free... so I shot some winter scenes this afternoon... to celebrate the doctor lifting all restrictions due to my leg this morning. I'm feeling a little more free to move around now, which helps. Time to take a look and see what I got... ))

[Couchrocket]

Jan,

 

Here's a nice free resource: BBC Masterclass Photo PDFs

 

A lot of the topics I mentioned briefly are nicely illustrated.

[Couchrocket]

As my malaprop old captain used to say, "At the risk of beating a dead horse to death."

 

Let me reinforce what I said earlier about the freedom to interpret an image as your mind's eye saw it. Our eye moves from element to element in a scene and pays attention to what it likes and disregards what it doesn't.

 

This is the reason why we often are very excited about a scene before us and just know that it is a wonderful image, but when we get home and look at the file, image, print, we're disappointed. It is cluttered, there is stuff in the image that we didn't see that detracts, etc., and messes up simple compositional lines.

 

Is it legit to alter the image in a way that recreates the visual excitement that our selective vision at that moment brought to us? Age old debate.

 

My answer: If I'm reporting on some human interaction where maximum authenticity is required, NO. Even though what the camera records is no less altered from human vision. It can be said to be at least less manipulated. I could make a good argument for time, angle of view, etc. being just as editorial, but I won't.

 

If the image is an expression of your vision, how you felt, what excited you, and you want to share that feeling with others through your work - then anything that brings your pre-visualization to life is not only fine, but something to be admired in someone's work. It is an expression of that person's sensibilities (even if you don't like them).

 

Here's an example from our recent trip to AZ.

 

The first image is my final version / vision of what I loved about what I saw. It is the version I posted a few days ago:

 

 

And for comparison, here's the file as it came out of the camera:

 

 

You can play "Where's Waldo" to see what I did. Each choice was deliberate, and the process was iterative.

 

Whether you prefer the unaltered version, or my vision, doesn't matter. What matters is recognizing what I did and why. So ask yourself that. See if you can tell me what I did, and why you think I have done it.

[Twisties]

Cloned out stack, and the protuberance on the lower right. Cleaned up some dots/strange spots on the right upper vertical shape. Cleaned up two bits of background greenery on the right, one at the top, one mid-lower. Overall darkened the image 0.2-0.4 stops. Applied some sharpening, but not much. May have increased the saturation a bit, or the darkening may have had that effect.

 

Amazingly little, actually. Very surreal in overall effect, and ultimately suited to the subject.

 

Edit, and I forgot to mention, cleaned up the red hexagon a bit.

[Couchrocket]

Yup... you got it. And though very little work done, it was done very carefully and considered, and the impact of making the composition "more simple and clean" had a HUGE impact on the overall sense of the image!