a dam, smoke and cloud

[rjlhughes]

I thought it might be appropriate for me to add a peaceful image:

[sirhc55]

Works for me Bob plus your new byline

[rjlhughes]

Chris,

I'd better not mention how long I walked around to get the right shot then!

[krpolak]

In my humble opinion this shot surely shows peacefull and stunning view. However my concern would be few technical aspects. Sky looks quite overblown whereas land looks a bit underexposed. Maybe CPL or even better gradient filter could help (to be honest my the only filter is cpl). Also it looks that you catch nice flare (middle of the frame). What lens do you use? BTW, where is it?

Regards,

K.Polak

[sirhc55]

I believe the flare is actually smoke

[rjlhughes]

- and I've falsified the colour to mask the defects.

Oh yeah, the flare is smoke, thanks Chris.

Lens, I'm not sure. Canon kit I'd think.

Near Duckmaloi this afternoon.

KR - did I ever mention how much I liked the tiled roof geometric shot you did?

[krpolak]

rjlhughes

- and I've falsified the colour

I had tiny feeling that grass looks somehow bizzare Especially on the front-right, mixture of saturated green and brown spots

did I ever mention how much I liked the tiled roof geometric shot you did?

Not yes, but thanks for that. I like it as well, it is a good exercise and quite big challange, but also awarding with nice results.

Regards,

K.Polak

[rjlhughes]

No the texture of the grass is right - that is soil showing through. What's germinated is growing well, but it hasn't all germinated yet.

[krpolak]

Hmm, have you thought about taking panorama there? Could look intersting.

Regards,

K.Polak

[rjlhughes]

i think i got the best bit, but you're welcome to have a look - there's a lot of good scenery near there

[Matt. K]

Bob
I'm going to be brutally honest here....I gather that you are not a newcomer to photographer.....so why post that particular landscape? It has no redeeming features whatsoever? Any forum member could go for a drive into the country and park their car on the side of the road and snap something similar to your shot every time. So what gives? It is technically poor, compositionally boring and bland, bland, bland, in every sense of the word. The dam in the foreground grabs the eye for a moment...and the eye sees nothing there...the eye scans the image further looking for something of merit or interest....and finds nothing...and the dam in the foreground...already dismissed catches the eye again....but the eye has had its fill. It is then all over? So why have you posted that particular landscape? Is it the most peaceful that you have? Or are you waiting to see how the members react? Or do you believe it is an outstanding landscape? I am now asking you to explain to the forum members what this image means to you and why you think it is worthy of posting. Be academic in your reply if it is called for.

[rjlhughes]

Matt,

we'd had some pretty robust discussions here in the past few days and I thought it might be a pleasant change to offer a peaceful image.

In the picture I was aiming for a sense of balance in the landscape. The parallel between the flatness of the dam and the smooth area of cloud in the upper right was a bonus. I did try to centre the smoke. And I'm not sure if I got the tree over the dam right.

I tried quite a few shots including some verticals that just didn't work.

I'm also interested in the idea that the 2 to 1 perspective is how our eye sees landscapes and I cropped it to that. It's something I read over the weekend in bed.

Plus I'd been sick and stuck inside for most of the week and was delighted to be out taking snaps again.

I chose the colour because I think of that style as the "nursery food' of landscape photography as I know it. The PS action which is meant to imitate Kodachrome 64 (but doesn't of course) reminds me of the pictures I saw as a child in magazines in the 50's and 60's.

That's what it means to me. It's interesting that it got such a strong reaction from you.

In one book I read over the weekend a fashion photographer said his first job was to stop the viewers eye, and then burn the image into the memory.

Heck I guess I didn't.....but thanks for the comment. You've given me something to think about.

And thanks for bumping it back up, I guess.

[owen]

Hi Bob. Two things that strike me with this image. The sky is very overblown as has been mentioned, and everything seems so far away. Perhaps if you want to make the dam the focus, try zooming in a bit on it and composing it differently. I recently have read a few landscape photo books and it's suprprising how often they use 300-400mm lenses to take landscape photos.

Regards,
Owen.

[rjlhughes]

Owen

Without sending you the proof sheet or sending you to the spot it's hard to fully describe the decisions I made walking around. I don't have a really long lens, so that wasn't a choice. The thing that I like about landscapes around there is to do with the way it folds and swells. The fleshy ripples. If you look in the middle distance you should see what I mean.


Krystian made that comment about the sky too.

I appreciate his comment about the filter. I shot this in jpeg so I didn't have the latitude that RAW would have given. And although this isn't an excuse in this case necessarily, have you sometimes noticed that things are overblown to our eyes?

I notice it especially with shiny leaves in Sydney in winter light - they can be shiny beyond what my eye can see.

So sometimes overblown can be an appropriate artistic choice.

In this case I don't think it looks that bad, but I take your point. Often I'll try to match a process to a picture so that they enhance each other. I can be sloppy technically, though.

May I make the amused point that many many posts here have words that are misspelt? That's a far far greater sin in my eyes.

Thanks for the comment.

[nat]

May I make the amused point that many many posts here have words that are misspelt?

I recall the old saying: "A picture speaks a thousand words".
Does this mean that posting one of my less than perfect photos makes me guilty of making many, many spelling errors??

[Matt. K]

Bob
I will agree with you on the fact that your image has that "Old Womens Weekly look" about it. That gives it a style.

[kipper]

Owen, I read a magazine that said use a long prime and chose your vantage point to get a shot of hills that are one after each other.

[darb]

personally i dont think a CPL would do a thing. Never does on cloud... a grad ND to gain control of that sky would help a lot ... or wait for a darker bit of cloud (though then youd probably underexpose the foreground / land as much anyway)

nice bit of terrain and interesting to hear your composition ideas (it doesnt grab me much, but each to their own), but i think its under exposed , colour looks a bit blotchy etc.

Perhaps could concentrate on some more simple composition ideas. *shrugs*

but thats just me!

[owen]

May I make the amused point that many many posts here have words that are misspelt? That's a far far greater sin in my eyes.

Bob.

If you'll take note this is a photography review/critique forum, not a language forum. Spelling errors may be a great sin to you, but in this forum it makes no ounce of difference. The pictures are what matter the most.

Anyway back on topic, a recent book I read the photographer used graduated grey filters, which made the skies look quite impressive. I think one of those would have made your shot look a lot better, and then you could have increased the exposure slightly too.

Cheers,
Owen.

[rjlhughes]

Owen,

I don't have one of those filters.

Someone may suggest that in RAW you can expose for both sky and land, too.

My point about spelling yea even in the valley of the photo forum is that it's about precision of expression, just as whether my tones run from 5 to 250 or exceed that range.

There are over 100,000 posts I see - I wonder what proportion are pictures? This section looks like it has the most individual posts according to the front page. The dominant form of expression here if you counted all non picture posts would be - words.

Most really good photographers I know are actually very clear in their use of words too. And often succinct.

[darb]

Most good photographers, and indeed intelligent beings, I speak with on informal forums such as this couldnt give a flying hoot for pedantry over grammar, within those informal bounds. Some are very well written, some are atrocious.

Naturally it's good etiquette to express one's self clearly, but how you purport that grammar laziness correlates at all to artistic, or photographic talent has me stumped.

Irrespective of talent. I'm a mix, depending how tired I am, or how clearly I need to communicate depending on the level of the conversation.

Wouldnt judge the fellas in here by it though mate, you might have a rough trot

Ps dont ever take offence to honest critique ... and often you'll find yourself disagreeing, so you just thank them for their opinion and move on.

My 2 bobs worth anyway

[Nnnnsic]

May I make the amused point that many many posts here have words that are misspelt? That's a far far greater sin in my eyes.

So how off topic do we want to go in this thread here?

It's an image thread, right? Your image thread, Bob.

If you really want to discuss spelling issues, do it here.

[rjlhughes]

Leigh,

it was an aside in the earlier post. And since it is a thread about my image I suppose I have a little more leeway (if you'll forgive the pun) to offer some thoughts.

Darb,

It does relate however in my view - I cherish the old fashioned idea that clear communication reflects clear thinking. But I don't always get it right either.

Matt,

I was thinking more American colour than AWW - but it's an interesting reference - someone here will know what contributed to the look that they had.

thank you for your opinions.

[LOZ]

Most good photographers, and indeed intelligent beings, I speak with on informal forums such as this couldnt give a flying hoot for pedantry over grammar, within those informal bounds. Some are very well written, some are atrocious.

Naturally it's good etiquette to express one's self clearly, but how you purport that grammar laziness correlates at all to artistic, or photographic talent has me stumped.

Irrespective of talent. I'm a mix, depending how tired I am, or how clearly I need to communicate depending on the level of the conversation.

Wouldnt judge the fellas in here by it though mate, you might have a rough trot

Ps dont ever take offence to honest critique ... and often you'll find yourself disagreeing, so you just thank them for their opinion and move on.

My 2 bobs worth anyway

110%

[darb]

..

[stubbsy]

Bob

I've watched from the sidelines for a while and have refrained from commenting on what I found an ordinary image (FWIW I though the same about your other recent landscape). My conclusion is that as you are a professional journalist your photog skills don't match your word skills or you don't show us your best pics

Edit: Bob PM'd me about this (thanks for your honesty Bob) so I want to make clear my comment about his former profession lest people think I'm making a connection between that and Bobs photographic skills. Here's what I replied to Bob - "My point was that your finely honed word skills are well in evidence and was making the point that you had not yet (based on evidence to date) reached the same level in your photographic endeavours."

One problem when we have only the written word is that it's easy to misunderstand the writer's intent and I fear there was the oipportunity for that here. Hopefully this clears that one up

[darb]

rjl : with regard to your PM, and your reply ... all good mate, no problemo. We can all work on our photography, and we can all work on our internet etiquette. Provided theyre not linked in critique judgement. Like most things in society, not all will agree with you, so you will need to bear this in mind and compromise, else you are going to find yourself unduly getting high blood pressure quite often on these forums. Some may be well written, but poor typists, some may just be lazy. Who knows. I'm lazy. But recieving honest critique is a rare thing, so biting of the tongue is sometimes prudent when replying to others critiques and/or giving.

Personally I dont value grammar correctness in informal places (get me writing a formal document and its a different fishbowl altogether.) ... providing people are legible enough for me to easily understand.

Good luck with the landscape hunting anyway.

[Nnnnsic]

Leigh,

it was an aside in the earlier post. And since it is a thread about my image I suppose I have a little more leeway (if you'll forgive the pun) to offer some thoughts.

Why would you think that?
You want to discuss side points about the image, fine, you go ahead and do that. You want to discuss the inspiration for the image then please, talk 'till your heart's content.

However, if I'm alerted by a user to something that's going way out of topic especially if it may be irritating to people then I will step in if I feel that I should.

And it wasn't just an aside. You continued to make comments about it after the said post.

Hell, it's part of the reasons why darb and owen have commented in this thread.

[rjlhughes]

Leigh

i always find it hard to resist replying to people's comments - you should know that by now.

I once had a thread hijacked by people who were writing morse code, which you'll recall.

But this probably isn't the place to mention that....


now getting back to the image - there is a flare there as Krystian mentioned.