How to improve this shot?

I was visiting Lake Tahoe a few weeks back and saw a little castle, through the woods, at the bottom of a hill next to the water. It gave me a nice feeling of being in a scene of a fairy tale. So I took a shot. When I look at the result, the picture seems to be too busy and does not convey the soothing feeling. I'd appreciate it very much if someone would tak a look at the photo at <a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/tahoe.jpg"> http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/tahoe.jpg </a>, and let me know what you would do to improve it.

 

<p>

 

The photo was taken at about 4pm, facing northeast. The sky had some overcast. I focused on the castle, which is almost infinity. It was taken with a Nikon N70 with a 35-105 zoom, f8 and 1/30 sec, Kodak Royal Gold 100 film.

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

My initial thoughts, for what they're worth: <P>1) I don't like the trees on the right. They dominate the picture and give it a very off-balance look. Also, did you use your flash? The lighting on these trees looks different from that in the rest of the picture. Very flat, and warmer. Probably since the day was overcast the rest of the scene was lit with bluish light, whereas the color temperature of flashes is more like the warmer light on a clear day.<P>2) Clearly we're meant to look at the castle, but it's just way too small.

I agree with Mark that the reddish tree on the right is too disturbing

for the whole picture: it's too big and the tone is certainly not in harmony with the rest of the scene. You might want to reframe the picture by getting rid of that tree, shooting vertically, and using

a longer telephoto lens (200-300?) to enhance the presence of the castle. Just some random thoughts.

I agree, the tree on the right is distracting. The main color in the

picture is green, so the red tree trunk immediately catches you

attention and brings you away from the subject, which I assume is

the castle.

 

<p>

 

I also agree that the subject is too small in the picture. Was the

picture taken on the 35mm end of the zoom? I would re-shoot it with

a longer focal length to concentrate on the subject.

<P>Personally, I find it difficult to believe you got this shot, with <EM>these</EM> shadows, facing northeast at 4 P.M. Pacific Time, toward Vikingsholm Castle which is located on the southwest side of Lake Tahoe.

 

<P>That aside, the framing of your composition has too much dead space (1/3 on the right, 1/4 on the bottom, 1/3 on the top). The colors and Photoshop levels indicate that this image has been heavily mucked around with.

 

<P>Whatever counts, 1) tighten up on your subject matter, 2) toss out the bizarre Photoshop commands.

Thank you all for the suggestions! I agree that the big tree on the right is too big and its color doesn't go with the rest of the photo. I sometimes look at the photo by covering the big tree, or a part of it, with my hand, it feels better.

 

<p>

 

Some answers to the questions raised:

 

<p>

 

I did not use flash. The big tree on the right was red+brown.

 

<p>

 

The lighting was strange given the time and direction in which the photo was taken. The camera was facing northeast at 4pm. The overcast was pretty bright that day. To my 2-o'clock was the open space of the huge lake and there were some snow mountains around. To my left was deep forest so it was dark. So it looked that the light came from the east at 4pm.

 

<p>

 

The photo was scanned in from a 4x6 print with an HP ScanJet 3C and CorelPaint. The only thing I did after scanning it in was to sharpen it by 4% so it would look more like what on the print. It still doesn't look as sharp but close. The online image does have a bit higher contrast than the print on my two monitors.

 

<p>

 

About the sugguestion of using a longer focal length, that was my first reaction, too, when I saw the scene. I mounted my 80-200 zoom (the plastic one which I have exchanged for a 70-210D) and pull the castle in, but it didn't show the nature of the scene -- it lost the

distance and the surrounding of the scene. It looked like <a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/tahoe1.jpg"> this </a>(I digitally cropped the photo), only even flatter in the zoom. So I changed the lens and shot the photo at about 60mm focal length. I guess I should have zoomed in a bit more and leave only a part of the big tree at the edge of the picture.

 

<p>

 

I guess this is one of the cases which Philip calls "near-and-far" setting, except that the subject to emphasize is at the far end to show the vast surroundings. I wonder what are the general technigues of handling this. I guess openning up the lens to blur the things close might help, or, catch some special lighting (with a lot of luck) on the subject will help, too. Suggestions?

 

<p>

 

Thanks!

Okay, here's my 2 cents.<p>

 

One of the problems with getting a shot like this is the nature of human perception. The eye/brain combo tends to misrepresent that which we are interested in as being more prominent than it is, and somewhat ignores that which we are not interested in. How many times have you taken a snapshot of something, thinking at the time that this would make for a great picture, only to discover when you look at the final result that there are power lines or telephone poles or some other very distracting element in the picture? Unless you're diligent when setting up the shot, it's easy to miss these kinds of things. The castle probably seemed more prominent to you when you were surveying the scene and the reddish tree much less prominent than it appears in the final photo.<p>

 

Therefore, I agree with the others who've suggested a longer focal length for tighter composition. The digitally cropped image you provided is an improvement composition-wise, although I'm sure the mood is different than you intended.<p>

 

Here the problem is that it's extremely difficult to duplicate the mood or feeling of being somewhere with a photograph. Too many non-visual factors contribute to your mood -- the ambient temperature, your state of mind, the people you're with, etc.<p>

 

I once took a picture of a neighbor's back yard from my living room window. Truth is, I was just taking random pictures with a new camera to test it out, and I never would have taken that picture otherwise. Compositionally it was not great. However, the actual print turned out quite nice -- in fact, it didn't even look like my neighbor's back yard! It projected a feeling of seclusion that simply isn't present when looking at the same scene "live."<p>

 

I guess what I'm trying to get across with my extended rambling here is that you should probably concentrate solely on recreating the visuals, and let the mood take care of itself. Photography is a visual medium, and while a great photo can invoke a certain mood in the viewer, it's not possible to predict what that mood will be for each and every viewer. A great photo might invoke a feeling of sadness in one person, hope in another, envy in a third, and something completely different in a fourth. I hope you get the idea...

Well, like Russ said, our brains see's things the way we want them to be seen. I would guess that your purception when you saw this shot did not really contain the trees next to you, but rather, the tress a little further down.

 

<p>

 

I would suggest walking closer to the castle instade of the long zoom from this vantage point, the long lens will flatten without some sort of light to add contrast. I would move in closer, like on the opposit shore, if possible and see if a 105mm would be better, I "think" the lower angle would help increase details in the castle and purhaps enlarge it a bit. I would use a warming filter and since you are using print film, I would over expose by 1.5 stops. I would also use f16 maybe f11 instade of f8, again for details in the windows. I would even get real close (if I could), like on the bank the castle is on just in front, use a 24mm with the warming filter or a softspot type of deal. I would include some of the lake. Just my two cents!

One thing I forgot to mention in my first follow-up is that the

surface pattern on that red/brown tree in the foreground is quite

interesting. That could have been a nice picture by itself or perhaps

a nice macro shot.

In one of John Shaw's books I read that you should always be able to identify the subject when you take a photograph. The subject seems to be the castle, but in the image it is too small to be the subject. Obviously, a longer lens or a change in perspective (walk closer) could enlarge the subject.

Actually, I don't dislike the image. The two trees represent an interesting contrast in the type of trees found in a forest. Get rid of the castle and you have a nice picture whose subject is the two trees.

FOLLOW UP

 

I digitally cropped the photo in a number of ways according to the suggestions and my own taste. Here they are and please let me know which one you like best.

 

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle1.jpg"> Try 1 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle2.jpg"> Try 2 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle3.jpg"> Try 3 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle4.jpg"> Try 4 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle5.jpg"> Try 5 </a> (I like this one best) <br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle6.jpg"> Try 6 (Just the tree trunk) /a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle7.jpg"> Try 7 </a> (The castle was removed) <br>

<P>Number 1 shows the best composition only because Number 5 (your favorite) loses the red tree on the right about 3/4 of the way up. This image shows the possibility of a square composition (Hasselblad-style); widen up on the right, crop the bottom.

 

<P>Number 7 is very interesting since the subject matter suddenly moves to the red tree on the right. Your initial post indicates that you were taking a picture of the idyllic castle, not the tree; this changes everything.

 

<P>However, this red tree trunk is nothing special; it is uninterestingly lit. It resembles a thousand tree trunks I have seen.

None of these photos work for me, and I think that the reason is that subconsciously I want the castle to be the subject, but it is just too small to handle this role in the photo. The trees in the foreground dominate the scene. If the castle were Neu Schwannstein, maybe it would have worked, but I doubt it.

 

<p>

 

In the traditional "near - far" compositions, the near subject is a small item that looms large due to issues of perspective, and the far subject is a large item that is not so greatly diminished by perspective that it becomes irrelevant. I think that in all of the these compositions, the castle begs to be more important than it is, and that is why the photo isn't special. In the shot where you've removed the castle, I am still not excited about the composition, because now the light colored area in the center catches my attention, but once I'm there, I am not really very satisfied with what I've found.

 

<p>

 

I think that your castle shot is a classical "I was here" type of photo. It records the event. You can remember the trip and the view by looking at this photo. I don't think it works on any other level, at least not for me, regardless of the various cropping strategies that you've tried. If you want to capture a memorable image of this castle, I think you are going to have to explore other camera locations between where this picture was taken and the castle itself.

I'd really like to thank Qiang Li for putting this image up for review. Not only did it generate some great responses, but you also acted on some of the suggestions by providing digitally altered alternatives. Neat!

 

<p>Perhaps this could be a periodic exercise? (What do you think, Bob?)

 

<p>As for this particular shot, I personally feel tension coming from the random, light colored, dead-looking twigs coming out of the tree on the left. I don't know why, but I find them quite unsettling.

 

<p>Regarding Russ's thoughts... I agree. I am very aware that the brain sees things differently than the camera does, and am still struggling to improve my images by considering this when I shoot. But it seems to be working, as there are <i>fewer</i> power lines in my photos. :-)

I want to thank everyone for the great inputs. I learned more from this discussion than reading a book about composition. I wish there was a forum just for this kind discussions, especially for amateurs.

 

<p>

 

I can volunteer to maintain such a forum on my workstations but I don't know what kind of software that photo.net is using. It is really neat. Is it in public domain or commercial?

I'm actually working on getting the image critique page here up and

running again. I hope to have something back on line before too

long.

Having only discovered this today, I feel I missed the party... It was brave of you to volunteer the picture, but it was definitely worth it. Your picture corresponds in quality to many I have taken; so the question of how to do it better really got me going! Brilliant! I hope it won't be long before we get the chance to do something similar again.

My best guess is that I may be able to open up the photo critique

section again in about 3-4 weeks. In the meantime everyone who

hasn't visited that section of photo.net nature is welcome to do

so and contribute their comments on the images (but no new

submissions just yet please!).

 

<p>

 

The delay is so that the software can be modified to simplify the

task of image submission. We can do that here of course, but I

think it's better to have a separate section for images rather

then mix them in with the general questions. I'd also like to run different expiration dates for images and questions, which isn't

possible here.