Across from Woody Pond

Barbara,

I'm gonna step way out on a limb here and do something that I don't think has been done here before. I would like to challenge you and ask you to compare this image with your previous posting in Landscape.
I really don't want to put you on the spot, but I want to challenge you to be able to evaluate your own work. Although I did not comment on the previous post, I do have an opinion on both of these. I am glad to share my critique with you, but I would first like to hear your own evaluation between the two. Try and remove yourself from the images and critique them objectively. What do you think makes one image stronger than the other? What is appealing, distracting or otherwise prohibiting you or someone from engaging with these images?

Please feel free to contact me offline if you think I've over stepped my bounds here, but I really believe there is something to be gained here.

Lon

First, I'd like to say I think Lon's initiative here is great, there's a lot to be learned from self critique.

But of course you psoted the image here for some comments, so I'll add my opinion: I really like how you've framed the reds here in contrast with the green background, it really makes it stand out a lot. Ideally I might darken the bg just a tad, to make the lovely reds stand out even more here!

Thank you for the comments, Jorne. Lon, I welcome all the help I can get, and I really appreciate your willingness to help me. I will be back soon with a comparison. Thank you both!

I like the colours in this Barbara and the view you mention with just enough room under the bottom branch to see up into the pond. It does look a little tilted, though I'm not sure if the angle of the tree is making it look that way.

Gary.

Barbara, I like the way you separate the reds by selective depth of field. This complements the delicate contrast between colors. Personally, I would wish a bit more space at the right, but this might be purely a matter of opinion.

Peter

I also think Lon's suggestion is excellent, not just for you Barbara, but for all of us. Self critique is very important.

As for me, I like the soft color of this - it almost looks like a slight Orton effect has been applied. I think a small crop off the bottom might help the composition somewhat. I don't mean this to be critical, but it seems you're still struggling a bit with your landscape compositions, at least when compared to your compositions in the Flora and Photo Art galleries. You're knocking them out of the park there. You've certainly made improvements IMO, but still have a way to go perhaps in landscapes. For that matter, who of us doesn't have plenty of room for improvement there? It could just be me, of course, perhaps I don't understand what your vision is; what you want to "say" with your landscapes. Anyway, just my thoughts...

Thank you for the comments, Gary, Peter and Bill. Bill, I am absolutely still struggling with landscape composition. I will be so glad if/when I make a breakthrough here.

I love the color combination here, Barbara. The red tree is set off beautifully from the drab green background.

Guy

Absolutely your best effort in landscape so far that I have seen. Your separation of the main subject from it's surroundings with the dof, your control of the lighting, your pp work, and your use of color all combine to make a strong image. Your main focus is clear in this shot, which helps the viewer connect with your intent.

Okay, Lon, here goes, with some areas of comparison from my reading about landscape composition. Please tell me if any of these are incorrect. My thinking is that you think this one is better than the previous one, so if I'm wrong about that, then this will be all wrong. Thank you!

1. Depth -- The previous post doesn't have any. This one does.

2. Center of interest - The previous post doesn't have one. This one has the red tree, though what's confusing to me about this is that the red tree is only one of the things I wanted to convey. The water underneath and past the red tree was also important to me. I don't know how that works, if there's more than one thing you want to convey.

3. The viewer's place in the image - The previous image doesn't have a place for the viewer to enter the image. In this one I think the water allows the viewer to enter the image and the trees and land beyond the water keep the viewer from leaving the image.

4. The viewer's interaction with the image - The previous image doesn't have anything to interact with. This one has the tree and following the water under the tree.

5. Rest area - The previous post doesn't have one. This one has the water.

6. Visual path - The previous post doesn't have one. This one does, though it starts more or less in a corner, which is not good.

7. Leaning out/in - The previous post has the trees leaning out. This one has the tree leaning in.

Summary: The previous post is not abstract enough to be an abstract, and as a "real" landscape doesn't have any place for the viewer. This one as a "real" landscape does have a place for the viewer.

Hopefully if I've got this all wrong it'll still be useful somehow. Thank again, Lon, very much.

Excellent self critique and comparison Barbara. You mentioned "if I got this all wrong" - there's no way to get it wrong IMO. Any critique where you learn something is "right" - period.

One suggestion, if I may. Look seriously at the landscapes of others that you really admire. Figure out what it is that you really like about them. Is it the perspective, low or high, the light (time of day), technicals (f/stop, shutter speed, etc). Figure out what it is that appeals to you, and then try to emulate that. I'm not saying outright copy someone or steal their "style", but certainly it's ok to copy techniques that have proven to be successful for others. Again, just a thought.

It's really encouraging to see someone work as diligently as you do to improve your craft!

Barbara, I just read your self=critique and, although I don't know what Lon was looking for, I think you made some very good points. In particular, I agree with your assessment of your "place for viewer in image". The previous image had nowhere to enter or exit and nothing to lead the veiwer through it. This one is much better. nicely done

Barbara,

Thank you for taking the time and meeting my challenge! Like Bill eluded to, we're all still learning no matter what level one thinks they're at. And honestly, try not to judge yourself or your photography as being right or wrong. There is no right or wrong way to photograph something. Sure, lots of techniques, visions and creativity to create something that is more appealing to some and not to others, but in the end what we offer here or anywhere else is opinions on what appeals to us - not necessarily you. Hope that makes sense.

So Nancy and others, what I was after was simply trying to get Barbara to not only look within and do a self critique, but also from outside looking in and trying to assess what qualities in these images appeal to others. And rather than think that if you didn't follow a rule that you did something wrong, assess why someone may have commented about a particular aspect and whether or not that agrees with your own thoughts.

A perfect side note example is long shutter speeds, and silky water. Many folks don't like the effect, many others love it. There is no right or wrong.

Your self critique is quite detailed and covers a lot of ground, most all of which I agree with your critique. In you summary you called this one a "real" landscape. Here's where I would disagree with a minor point, but to make a point. The other image is just as "real." Here again, it's not an "is" or "isn't" situation. I simply look at it as one image has more appeal or impact than the other.

I find this image to be among your best. As mentioned by others the lovely red is isolated nicely with a soft background and this just has a pleasant feel about. The other one was a bit harsh with all the attributes that you and others have pointed out.

I'll go even a step further and ask what your approach was in capturing this image? Choosing apertures and shutter speeds are choices of creativity which I'm quite sure you have or are starting to realize. Choosing a somewhat wide aperture can produce a scene like this where the bg is soft and helps isolate your main subject. If you can get to the point where you are thinking about these choices and why before you capture the image and while you are "seeing" the landscape in front of you, I think you will be at that next level.

Lon

Thank you, Lon. My approach in capturing this image was that I wanted to try to be sure the whole red tree was at least somewhat in focus, and I also wanted the background to be visible and not completely blurred, so that's why the f/9 instead of f/5.6. I wanted to not go much further back than the red tree with the sharper focus, so that's why not f/18, for example. I am at the point of thinking about this and making these choices, but still working through whether they were the right choices to bring about the results I wanted in any given situation. Was my thinking here correct or incorrect as far as aperture? Thank you, again, very much.

Thanks Barbara. Clearly you are thinking about these things and at least in my book takes you well beyond the beginner stage.

Now not to beat a dead horse here, but your aperture was not incorrect or correct. It was correct for what you were trying to accomplish! And clearly you chose wisely given what you just described as what your intent was. If you had said, "I chose f/5.6 to achieve maximum depth of field," I guess I could say you were incorrect. Do you see the difference? You made a creative choice and that was the correct choice for what you were trying to do.

Ok, even getting myself turned around here. Nice job with this image.

Lon

Interesting conversation guys. I agree, aperture is a creative choice, and for your purposes, you made the correct choice. I would question however, your choice of shutter speed and ISO. 1/1000 and ISO 400 seems like an odd choice for a landscape, but there may be a perfectly good reason for it; say, like the wind blowing ferociously, etc. If it was a calmer day on the other hand, the same results could have been obtained by using 1/250 @ ISO 100, and would have resulted in less noise in the event you wanted to enlarge this quite a bit. Again, not right or wrong perhaps, just different options to choose from.

This is good Barbara. Taking the time to decide how you want the photo to look definitely puts you on the right path. I would like a bit more room on the right side to let the tree truck be closer to the middle, maybe 220-230mm. I also question your use of ISO 400 as the lowest "native" ISO of the camera usually gives the cleanest, least noisy file.

Thanks, Bill and Dean. It was a windy day, but what I could have done is shot at more than one ISO to see what results I got. I need to try to remember to do that.

As far as more room on the right, that tree/shrub you see with the yellow at the right edge was in front of the red tree there. Would it have been better, maybe, to still move over more, even though it would have added another element to the image?

Sweet! I liked your last post, but it was not really a 'special' photo. This one has the qualities that make it special. What draws me to it especially are the red-green contrasts, the good DOF which highlites the red tree and gives the image a 3D quality, and the balance between trees and pond which gives it a real Thoreau-like feel. I think its a breakthrough for you!

Barbara: Well seen and very nicely captured. I like your comp and the DOF choice. Well done.>=))>

Having lived in Florida for 15 wonderful years, I can well understand that it may be more challenging to find unique landscape subjects. That, and the light can be incredibly harsh at any times other than perhaps a half hour on either side of sunrise and sunset.

Keep working on your photographic skills and I think you will get some unique images because your subjects are different and creative.