dave_smith36

<p>Briefly, I see many people putting a plastic diffuser dome on their flash, pointing it up at 45 or more degrees and calling it good. The problem is, that is often NOT good for many situations.<br> Truly knowing how to use bounce is a wonderful thing. I recommend following up with some of Neil van Niekerk's work. He's written a few books (and I've read all of them). From what I read in your post, you might be interested in his "ON Camera Flash". Many people thing that ON camera flash is a bad thing. Well, done incorrectly, that's true. But done correctly, you can get better results from on camera flash than improperly used OFF.<br> For free inspiration, check out his article here:<br> http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/</p>

<p>Hi Matt,<br> I'm new here (to photo.net) but definitely not new to photography. I've lurked on photo.net for a while now. I like your picture and your question, and you've inspired me to join just yesterday and now my first post.</p> <p>1) Leading lines, and the Rule of Thirds<br> It really looks like you consciously put thought into the composition to have the leading lines in the grass converge into a point that is placed at one of the "rule of thirds" intersections. And I think it's quite nicely done. The "rule of thirds" (ROT) is an established and effective composition tool. In this case, it draws the viewers eye into the picture and holds the attention there. Further, the horizon line (although somewhat obscured by the trees and houses) is also at the lower ROT line. Again, very nicely following the composition rule.<br> By following the ROT rule so closely, I think that there is a very strong pull for the viewer to look at that one spot, which draws attention away from the clouds overhead. The receding point on the ground is so strongly composed that it shouts out "hey, look here (not up at those clouds)".<br> There's a variation on the rule of thirds that's more generically called the "rule of odds". This means that focal points can be placed at 1/3 lines, or 1/5 lines. In practical terms, you can't do much more than 1/3 or 1/5, but the idea is that the odd numbers work well in the visual arts. The concept of placement, aspect ratios and framing is described quite nicely in a book that I like by David duChemin, called "Photographically Speaking". He places heavy emphasis on composition and the psychology behind it.<br> I bring this up because I like and agree with Ellis' point about placing the horizon much lower. This lessens the impact of that one point in the image and gives the sky a better chance of getting some attention.<br> And I think you've actual done this with your second image. I was just wanting to provide some background or reason why that's the case (from a composition perspective).</p> <p>2) Aspect Ratio<br> I also like the suggestion about shooting a vertical aspect ratio like Ellis and Leszek made. Depending on what the sky had to offer may or may not have made that practical. Either way, I don't know if you even captured the upper part of the sky and if that's an option.</p> <p>Sometimes, it's just a matter of shooting a vertical image anyways, just to see (later) if you like it.</p> <p>3) Tonal contrast<br> The viewer's eye is drawn to the point of greatest contrast. The sky is somewhat uniformly light in tonality. The ground and trees are dark. The point of greatest (tonal) contrast is the line that separates them.<br> If, in post-processing, you (subtly) lifted the shadows or lightened the lower half of the picture and also darkened the sky and increased contrast a bit (using a tone curve), I wonder if that would better tell the story of happy/cheerful on the ground (lighter tones) and the impending doom of a storm coming. The way that I interpret this image, I'd probably give that a try, but your intent might be different.</p> <p>4) Focal length and compression/expansion<br> This happens more with "why do the mountains look more distant?" than with your picture here (with clouds vs. ground), but you wondered aloud about "making things (the storm) look further away than it really was".<br> Shorter focal lengths (like the 18mm here) will optically push distant things further away. We know that the "feel" of the aspect ratio straight out of the camera is "normal" somewhere around 35mm - 50mm (depending on the sensor size). If you want to visually bring distant things in closer, you may want to try to zoom in tighter. You'll have to take more pictures to cover the same area, but the "feel" will be different and "more compressed".</p>