Buachaille Etive Mor

Fantastic image Richard, dramatic indeed.
Can I ask was filter you used for the sky? 3 stop soft grad?
 
•
Awesome scene…
very good imagery Richard!
 
It is a very over done shot, so if you take it make it a good one.

A few things jar here.

1. The fact on the KHS the mountain is cut off
2. The amount of negative space on the RHS relative to the LHS.

Could you have not just angled the camera more to the left

3. The amount of space at the top. Its an epic sky for sure...but
4. The bottom of the frame is a little cramped

IMHO a shorter FL to fit everything in would work better
 
It's interesting how we all see things differently. For me I like the way the rock anchors the bottom of the image and I like the lead in from the right. The water flowing into the picture complements the land so as the water falls the land rises.

Great sky, adds a lovely mood to the picture.
 
Done to death but I want to shoot it one day too. I think this is fine as it is. No pleasing some folk.
 
It's a very pretty image for sure, but seems a little soft, with a noisy sky.

The right hand side of the mountain has a narrow but severe halo running along it's length which becomes more apparent when viewed large in Flickr.
 
Minch said:
It's interesting how we all see things differently. For me I like the way the rock anchors the bottom of the image and I like the lead in from the right. The water flowing into the picture complements the land so as the water falls the land rises.

Great sky, adds a lovely mood to the picture.
Click to expand...

Yep you can't please everyone, thats why I hardly post on here anymore because you always get the real pixel peepers and the ones that just can't admit it's a good image and have to find something negative to say
 
richardhurst said:
Yep you can't please everyone, thats why I hardly post on here anymore because you always get the real pixel peepers and the ones that just can't admit it's a good image and have to find something negative to say
Click to expand...
It is a good image, but based on the comments, it can be improved. I tend not to notice a lot of things until they're pointed out to me, and things like the composition are very individual if you know what I mean.
The sky does appear to be noisy, and there is a definite halo down the right hand side, which would greatly improve the image if it wasn't there.
Bottom line though, if you're not happy at accepting what folks think, best not to post in the critique section. :)
 
richardhurst said:
Yep you can't please everyone, thats why I hardly post on here anymore because you always get the real pixel peepers and the ones that just can't admit it's a good image and have to find something negative to say
Click to expand...
But if you know it's a good image, why post it for critique? And when requested critique is provided, why be prickly?

I thought that was the whole point - may not agree with feedback (there's no 'right' way to take a photo), but by hearing many viewpoints it potentially broadens the scope of what we may consider in future. FWIW I agree with ST4, the image 'feels' a little heavy on the left side, with much of the weight composed there, as well as the diagonals and the flow of the water pointing there. So the eye isn't kept in the frame and moved around, but swept to the left side. There might have been the opportunity for more balance, but sometimes that reduced balance and added energy is what is sought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
ST4 said:
A few things jar here.
Click to expand...

I'm going to politely and subjectively disagree with you.

II think you have a specific - perhaps even prescriptive - view of how it should be done at that spot and just don't like anything that moves the frame or emphasis away from that view.

I think on any given day at that spot you take what you can get - and I think given the sky the foreground needs a bit of punch and has it - even if that might make it look a bit over cooked. Yes the tree and the left hand side are not perfect - but that's a compromise because the IMO the strength of the boulder in the foreground is more important.

Simple test - did I look more than once at this image of a fairly cliched subject. Answer yes. So on that simple test it has merit.
 
Dryce said:
I'm going to politely and subjectively disagree with you.

II think you have a specific - perhaps even prescriptive - view of how it should be done at that spot and just don't like anything that moves the frame or emphasis away from that view.

I think on any given day at that spot you take what you can get - and I think given the sky the foreground needs a bit of punch and has it - even if that might make it look a bit over cooked. Yes the tree and the left hand side are not perfect - but that's a compromise because the IMO the strength of the boulder in the foreground is more important.

Simple test - did I look more than once at this image of a fairly cliched subject. Answer yes. So on that simple test it has merit.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dryce, also just to add anymore to the left and there was a horrible clump of bushes, you can see just a few grasses on the edge of the frame above the boulder so anymore left and it wouldn't of worked. And I couldn't stand anywhere else as the ground had turned into a massive bog and even with my wellies on I was already sunk half way up them and I was on what I thought was harder ground
 
Dryce said:
I'm going to politely and subjectively disagree with you.

II think you have a specific - perhaps even prescriptive - view of how it should be done at that spot and just don't like anything that moves the frame or emphasis away from that view.

I think on any given day at that spot you take what you can get - and I think given the sky the foreground needs a bit of punch and has it - even if that might make it look a bit over cooked. Yes the tree and the left hand side are not perfect - but that's a compromise because the IMO the strength of the boulder in the foreground is more important.

Simple test - did I look more than once at this image of a fairly cliched subject. Answer yes. So on that simple test it has merit.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? Yes I've taken the usual shot a few times now but having seen this and my own attempts to try better the usual take (that ended in the bin) I remain unconvinced that the cliched shot can be better.

I happen to prefer upstream from here as a vantage point.

Why don't you pop an image up that you've taken to convince me that the standard view point and composition can be bettered?
 
Personally I like it.

In terms of hopefully constructive criticism:

1. I think perhaps it could do with, very slightly, being moved to the left so all of the mountain is in the photo but I understand the reason why this was not possible.
2. I don't really mind the boulder being close to the bottom. It is a nice anchor but I would have preferred it to be central, which is just a personal thing really.
3. Overall the saturation / contrast level it is, for my taste, a little too high but I appreciate this is also a personal taste issue.
4. The sky appears a little noisy at full size but I would be surprised if it was noticeable in a reasonable sized print.
5. It seems sharp enough to me at full size.

Overall I would be happy with it.
 
ST4 said:
What makes you say that? Yes I've taken the usual shot a few times now but having seen this and my own attempts to try better the usual take (that ended in the bin) I remain unconvinced that the cliched shot can be better.
Click to expand...

My feeling having tried at this location (and further back on the moor) a number of times that it's the light and season that are the biggest discriminator between interesting and dull shots - and yes the composition is important - but given the compromises at that location which limit it (including other people - sometimes by the workshop load) - and even the state of the river (and the risks at the bank) then you have to take what you can get.

The image on this thread is still growing on me.
 
Dryce said:
My feeling having tried at this location (and further back on the moor) a number of times that it's the light and season that are the biggest discriminator between interesting and dull shots - and yes the composition is important - but given the compromises at that location which limit it (including other people - sometimes by the workshop load) - and even the state of the river (and the risks at the bank) then you have to take what you can get.

The image on this thread is still growing on me.
Click to expand...

Still no image.

I agree light and season make it. I like the light and conditions in the shot but IMHO up stream like in my set, or in the usual spot gives a more pleasing shot. I'm glad you like the image, personally I don't but that's life.
 
ST4 said:
Still no image.

I agree light and season make it. I like the light and conditions in the shot but IMHO up stream like in my set, or in the usual spot gives a more pleasing shot. I'm glad you like the image, personally I don't but that's life.
Click to expand...

IMHO I feel that in your shot the mountain is far to central and you cannot get a real feel of it's scale as your viewpoint is to low down. Apart from a bit of light hitting the top of the image there is nothing else that grabs my attention. The sky is leaning towards boring and the water and few stones doesn't do enough to grab my attention for very long. It would of been better seeing it from a slightly higher viewpoint and seeing the terrain also leading up to the mountain so gaining a much better scale of it's imposing form.
 
Last edited:
Its a beautiful location you've shot Richard and I love how the clouds come over the mountain, but it does seem a bit flat to me like its had a bit of the hdr effect and the clouds are a bit noisy, Also is the shadow that cuts across the top of the tree from a hard grad filter?
 
Hotshots said:
Its a beautiful location you've shot Richard and I love how the clouds come over the mountain, but it does seem a bit flat to me like its had a bit of the hdr effect and the clouds are a bit noisy, Also is the shadow that cuts across the top of the tree from a hard grad filter?
Click to expand...

Hi Gordon, the clouds are a bit noisy due to the amount of clarity and structure I needed to add to give them some real definition, I will be trying a different approach on them during the week to try and cancel out some of that noise. With regards to the shadow across the tree I think it's just a combination of the autumn effect on the tree, maybe producing some darker areas and the way the light was hitting more the middle of the tree which has made it look this way. No hard grad was used so it's definitely not down to a misplaced filter.
 
You evidentially have a Marmite image on your hands Richard! I really like it, its mean and moody but with the nice splash of autumn gold to lift it a little.

I too feel it could have a little more room on the left, but given you've explained how you couldn't do that then I understand the thinking - not that you should really have to explain your reasons, your shot after all!
 
Personally I love it, great colours and exposure, just the right amount of water movement, good foreground, middle and background. As was said above, if it's an image I look at for more than 5 seconds, there must be something right about it. And that image to me was worthy of a good study. Just goes to show how different we all are.

Put 10 photographers in the same spot at the same time, with the same lens and body, and chances are you would have 10 totally different images.
 
I like it. It does feel a little cramped, which perhaps a couple of steps to the right may have opened up the composition, in allowing the waterfall a touch more space, separating the mountain LHS and tree a touch.
These are minor points, and they barely detract from the overall impression of the shot, which to me is well taken and exposed perfectly
 
I like the image, but it's more like a dig in the ribs than a gentle breath of beauty due to the lack of space.

Sadly, once the halo has been seen it cannot be unseen, and the grad affects the top of the tree, making it look oddly dull when it should glow all the way up.

But like I said, I DO like it, and would have been very pleased to have taken this myself.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I like the image, but it's more like a dig in the ribs than a gentle breath of beauty due to the lack of space.

Sadly, once the halo has been seen it cannot be unseen, and the grad affects the top of the tree, making it look oddly dull when it should glow all the way up.

But like I said, I DO like it, and would have been very pleased to have taken this myself.
Click to expand...

Thanks Toni. But like i have said it is not a grad affecting the tree is was just the autumn colours, some parts were darker than others, if you look at the right hand side where the branch is level with the base of the mountain it's darker there also and also bottom left is a bit darker it honestly is just the colour of the leaves in places combined with a low angle of light that has just made it look graded
 
I go with the thumbs up brigade, I think it is lovely, beautiful colours and mood, and I did look at the larger Flikr version. I only normally comment on B&W, and I would rarely even look at a thread of this location as it is so overdone. I get a vague feeling from some of the comments here that there is a sense of 'ownership' relating to the location, and about exactly how images of it should conform to a precisely laid down set of rules.

BTW I rather like the noise/grain in the sky, but then I go to some trouble to introduce digital grain into my photos!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top