Landscape - Critiques wanted!

[dawesy]

This is a grab shot I took on Lake Nakuru in Kenya (I know, yet another Africa shot!). I would really like some honest assesment, positive and negative if you have both, about this shot. I won't say much about it myself yet as I'm interested to see what comes out.

Thanks.

[Geoff]

Hi Dawesy - this image to me looks quite dull. No real point of the image that has real interest to it. I'd like to see what happens if you increase the contrast and saturation and also play with the curves/levels a little bit. Sorry, but this doesn't do much for me at all.

[Marvin]

Hi Dawesy,
I tend to agree. There isn't much of a focal point but the colours are pretty. I find the tree a little distracting as it's over the pretty colours - the protruding bottom branch. I think you could do a lot with this colour and contrast wise.
Cheers,
Lee

[Alpha_7]

I've tried two back and white versions Jon what do you think ??

Anyone else what to have a play around ?

http://alpha7.potatis-gallery.com/dslr/2007/misc/dawesy._landscape.jpg

http://alpha7.potatis-gallery.com/dslr/2007/misc/dawesy._landscape01.jpg

I'll take them down if you want.

[dawesy]

Thanks all. I think this is one of those images that should be good, but just isn't. I have been looking at it oscilating between liking it and not. Still undecided, but I do tend to like wishy landscapes others may not. I know there are some technical faults, for instance it's f6.3 when it should be closer to 16-22 etc but it was a shot I had about 10 seconds to get before the truck took off again!

Not sure about the b&w craig, it just ends up dark and depressing I think, though a good idea.

Good points about the colour/contrast. I'm really new to post processing. I only went digital for the trip and while I shot some sport and stuff before it I didn't get into photoshop or anything so suggestions appreciated. This is another attempt, upped the exposure, saturation and highlight contrast. Also cropped the bottom which I think helps.

Further comments still appreciated. Thanks all.

[MattC]

Dawsey,

I like this image (the first one). For me it has a sort of softness about it which makes it really easy to look at....

I guess I like wishy landscapes too.

Cheers

[dawesy]

Dawsey,

I like this image (the first one). For me it has a sort of softness about it which makes it really easy to look at....

I guess I like wishy landscapes too.

Cheers

Thanks MattC, I know what you mean and that was what drew me to it initially. Do you find the second one less appealing?

[MattC]

The second is less appealing to me. The mood (??) is gone. You have also cropped out the foreground. I would have left it. When I look at the second image I feel that I am looking at a flat canvas. The first feels like I am looking into a scene.

Cheers

Matt PS. I know what I like and what I do not like but cannot always explain why.

[dawesy]

The second is less appealing to me. The mood (??) is gone. You have also cropped out the foreground. I would have left it. When I look at the second image I feel that I am looking at a flat canvas. The first feels like I am looking into a scene.

Cheers

Matt PS. I know what I like and what I do not like but cannot always explain why.

Thanks mate. Think you're right, there's less mood in the second which was what appealed to me in the first. It's probably a closer representation of what was there, but less interesting.

Thanks for the comments. I guess like many things it's a matter of taste!

[Zeeps]

The tree to the right looks interesting. I would love to see a shot with it in the frame.

[Matt. K]

The image suffers from the dreaded 'empty foreground' fault. This is the most common fault with those just starting out in landscape photography. What you need is a mob of gerbils or impala in the foreground and then you have a winner. If there's nothing in the foreground then all you have is a background. Please take this as constructive criticism and your landscapes will improve dramatically. (And for the knockers and disbelievers....yes occasionally, just occassionally, you will see a brilliant landscape with an empty foreground. But they are so rare as to be truely exceptional. If you can find one please post a link to it) All of the other image elements are excellent.

[mattyjacobs]

I like the clouds in the first one, and the grass in the second one ... maybe combine the two?

[dawesy]

The image suffers from the dreaded 'empty foreground' fault. This is the most common fault with those just starting out in landscape photography. What you need is a mob of gerbils or impala in the foreground and then you have a winner. If there's nothing in the foreground then all you have is a background. Please take this as constructive criticism and your landscapes will improve dramatically. (And for the knockers and disbelievers....yes occasionally, just occassionally, you will see a brilliant landscape with an empty foreground. But they are so rare as to be truely exceptional. If you can find one please post a link to it) All of the other image elements are excellent.

Thanks very much, very helpful. It's something I have found in the past, getting home and thinking 'but it was such a beautiful view'. I might write it on the top of my wide lens to keep me reminded!! Unfortunately I don't think I'll get a change to go back and sit at that spot until the foreground works, but I'll see what I can do on my upcoming snowy's trip.

Cheers.

[dawesy]

I like the clouds in the first one, and the grass in the second one ... maybe combine the two?

I tweaked it some more and that's about what I have now. I still find it nice to look at, and it'll make the album of shots, but more as a story teller to show where we were than anything else. Like Matt said, it lacks that foreground element. Where's a big cat when you need one?

Cheers.