Flat skies...

simon ess said:
I'm absolutely delighted for everyone to pursue whatever floats their boat.

For most people photography is a wonderful hobby that provides great personal satisfaction in achieving whatever they want to achieve.

Good luck to you and everyone else.

But pretty, chocolate box cliches, repeated millions of times, and that is not an exaggeration, is good landscape photography?

We have very different ideas of what is meant by good

Very different.

Still, there is room for all opinions, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Pictures of strangers don't interest me at all and especially not the moody b&w conversions of those with characterful faces but it seems a popular subject with many and in 100 years they may be of some social value. As you say it takes all sorts.
 
Last edited:
Winkyphoto said:
For some images you could perhaps also consider a heavy crop to get rid of as much sky as is possible.
Click to expand...
If you were to want to crop out the sky, why the bloody hell would you include (so much of) it in the first place? Photography, especially for subjects that aren't in rapid motion, isn't about bang, bang, hope for the best and fix it later.

It IS all about the light. Yes you can exclude the sky by focussing in, but if the light's flat ... it's flat. Yes you can modify the light close-to (flash, etc), but is that artificial introduction (no matter how subtle) what you actually want?

One of the judgements that can be exercised, especially by a casual photographer, is not to take a shot. Photography isn't an OCD challenge. Learn to see light and assess it.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
If the sky is dull and grey then that is the reality,whatswrong with that?
Click to expand...
Well that's a judgement to be made. I think that the question is about what makes a satisfying photograph. We bring a range of assessments to bear. Some are to do with technique, others to do with meaning, but they're all interdependent.
 
If it looks flat because its rather overexposed, you can rescue it to some extent in Lightroom or similar with a grad effect.
Most skies will benefit from a light touch of that.
Or buy a set of real grad filters. I dislike physical filters as you can't fade them, and there is usually something sticking up which gets darkened more than you'd like
 
As has been shown by some examples in this thread , blank skys are not always bad news.

The two basic options are to either not include them.
Or use their tonality to your advantage, as has been demonstrated.

One advantage they do have, is to provide a soft, even light that is shadowless. This can be vey useful in some photography.
 
droj said:
If you were to want to crop out the sky, why the bloody hell would you include (so much of) it in the first place?
Click to expand...
Agree. Having said that, I crop pretty much all my images for one reason or another.
 
droj said:
If you were to want to crop out the sky, why the bloody hell would you include (so much of) it in the first place? Photography, especially for subjects that aren't in rapid motion, isn't about bang, bang, hope for the best and fix it later.

It IS all about the light. Yes you can exclude the sky by focussing in, but if the light's flat ... it's flat. Yes you can modify the light close-to (flash, etc), but is that artificial introduction (no matter how subtle) what you actually want?

One of the judgements that can be exercised, especially by a casual photographer, is not to take a shot. Photography isn't an OCD challenge. Learn to see light and assess it.
Click to expand...


You include it because it's there, and you have a fixed format sensor. If it is uninteresting, and that can be dull grey or bright cloudless blue - you can crop it out. Panormic images can look excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top