Over looking the hills, (RESTART OF OTHER THREAD)

[DinoS]

Hi

please post commensts and improvement sof the old thread in here.

thanks

Mark

 

[Marcel]

Oopsie, did you forget to attach the pic?

 

[DiddyDave]

Pity it disappeared - there was a lengthy explanation here too - however, here's my take on your shot - unfortunately I did it on my laptop so the colours aren't right when seen on my proper monitor

Basically, I've removed the boring sky to focus on the fallen branch - then removed some mid-ground to lessen the separation to the trees in the distance. The treeline is now on the top 1/3 too

This composition would have required you to shoot from a lower angle than you did, and as the subject was the branch - you didn't need all that sky

HTH?

 

[InaGlo]

OOps! old thread didnt exactly just disappear :nono:
Im afraid some over eager Mod deleted it when she merged the two threads that featured the same picture
... now I wonder who that was!

Hope you received my appology via PM Mark, as well as my offer to send you all the info I saved (including Dave's pic above) when I hit the back button.
Again, my appologies hopefully first & last time I ever drop that clanger!
... And if you'd like me to list all the comments posted & who posted them, just give me the nod and I can put them here.

 

[DinoS]

inaglo could you please post dd post before.

DD how did you remove some of the land in the field.

thanks
Mark

 

[InaGlo]

Here you go Mark, here's all the comments for you from both threads ....


theMusicman:
I like the pic Mark, and I appreciate we all want to protect our work,
but that awful watermark slap in the center of the image is... and I mean it... really awful!

Can I suggest placing it on the bottom of the image?

Steep:
It's ok, I might be tempted to crop the top down to just above the trees.

Lukey:
I agree with what's been said about the watermark!
Now about the image, I like this, the foreground interest is nice,
but I'm not sure on the colours sorry, they just seem a bit dull, but maybe thats me.:shrug:


BRASH:
I like it but maybe needs to be wider than it is higher to give more of a landscape appearance.

deanlewis:
I like the shot, but for me it would have more impact with the brighter top 3rd cropped.

Alex S:
The foreground interest is a good start.
I might have tried getting down a bit lower so that the log lead the eye into the picture a little more.
There also seems to be a funny ghosting effect running across the tree line,
maybe this is consequence of you removng the above mentioned watermark, not sure.

In my (very limited) experience I've found the best way to learn what works is to take both portrait and landscape shots from various levels; standing, kneeling and sometimes even lying on the floor!
LCDs on the back of cameras are brilliant,
but you can never be absolutely sure you've nailed the shot until you get them loaded onto a computer.

Hope some of this was helpful.


andyt70:
i like the portrait orientation of it, to me the focus point appears to be the tree branches at the top, and everything else appears just a little soft, but that may be my monitor.
i also agree with Alex S above, i rarely shoot any shot from eye level - thats were everything is viewed from normally - go looking for different angles

DiddyDave:
Sorry for the delay in coming back to you - had to go out for a bit

Mucked about on a laptop, so not too sure of the colours etc.
Part of the problem with the image is the viewer not being sure of what to look at.
For me, there's too much boring sky and the branches don't aid the composition, they just confuse it

Then, as you appear to have been stood up at the time there's too much space (separation) between the branch on the floor and the trees in the background - so I took a bit out to give you an idea of how a different view would look in foreshortening the gap

Lastly, I mucked about a bit with the levels & saturation, and put a simple border around it
- any picture worth showing is worth a border IMHO

HTH? :shrug:


STEEP:
That's the shot!

gwh:
The crop is much better.
Be careful with your focal point,
with landscapes i find should be a third into the frame and an aperture of f16 or above.
Use a tripod , nd or nd grads and a pol whatever makes the shot at the time,
most of all take your time framing the shot walk a few paces either way and see what works best.
A shot that works in the camera will always work with software. hope this helps
yours gwh.

DiddyDave:

(Quote
Originally Posted by gwh View Post
an aperture of f16 or above,(Quote)

I don't agree with this bit m8 - issues of sharpness (acuity) arise after f11 in most lenses,
so yes you get more DoF but at the cost of sharpness

A shot like this I'd have done at f8-11 but at the lower end of my 12-24mm,
so everything would have been in focus anyway.
f22 is only for 'desperate' measures IMO


There ... thats everything you'd lost Mark, hope that makes amends

 

[DinoS]

thanks inaglo

AND THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND SORRY ABOUT THE WATER MARK.

so the overall opinion of this shot is pretty good but could be improved and hopefully people who have helped me from the beggining will start to see an improvment in my shots.

thanks

everyone

Mark

 

[DiddyDave]

DD how did you remove some of the land in the field.

thanks
Mark

Do you like it first?

Okay, hire a JCB...

Copy the layer; on the copy make a selection just below the treeline, and use layer via cut; use the move tool on the new top layer and drag it down a bit over the layer below it; crop & border to finish

 

[DinoS]

i really like the new shot, i see how it is improved without that much more
effort. next time i will look for better angles.

thanks
for your help

mark

 

[DiddyDave]