First real attempt at landscape. Please, critique openly. Thanks!

You've got decent detail in the shadows on the grass and what looks like some haze in the distance. There's a good sense of depth. I like the angle of the trees that comes from pointing the camera up a bit. The eye is drawn to the light area by both the shadows and the fact that it's a light area, which is good if you roughly follow the rule of thirds or thereabouts. On the surface it's a somewhat ordinary scene, but there are a lot of things done correctly that make it worth looking at.

Thank you Mr. Hoffman.

Nearly fisheye lens ? The trees leaning over keep my eyes fixed on the scene in the frame and not imagining what else could be included on the sides. I might have found a slightly different position to take the shot, to balance out the composition, it looks a little too "one-sided", but I think the light and shadow configuration is pleasing. The hazy look in the distance needs darkening, IMO it's a distracting blown highlight.

I agree with @conrad_hoffman' comments. What makes the photo interesting for me are:

- the light and the contrasts that gives, especially in the patterns of light and dark (shadow) on the grass

- the shadows of trees also serve as 'leading lines' drawing the eye towards the more brightly lit area in the distance

- the natural color (and light/dark) contrasts in the leaves of trees

 

Although the 'landscape' under other conditions might look ordinary, you picked a great time of day and good location to take this! It's a good example of 'the photographer' (rather than the scene) creating an interesting photo. Congrats!

Thank you both, kmac and Mr. Morrell.

No problem with the haze, it's fine and the composition works for me.

 

The only thing I would mention, and it's not a criticism, is that the image lacks a focal point of interest. Some pictures work without one, like this one. On another day you might look for something in the subject for the viewer's eye to settle on before moving away to explore the wider scene.

Thank you, Mr. Seaman.

Nearly fisheye lens ? The trees leaning over keep my eyes fixed on the scene in the frame and not imagining what else could be included on the sides. I might have found a slightly different position to take the shot, to balance out the composition, it looks a little too "one-sided", but I think the light and shadow configuration is pleasing. The hazy look in the distance needs darkening, IMO it's a distracting blown highlight.

 

Honestly, KMAC, I don't see any blown out highlights anywhere within the frame.

No problem with the haze, it's fine and the composition works for me.

 

The only thing I would mention, and it's not a criticism, is that the image lacks a focal point of interest. Some pictures work without one, like this one. On another day you might look for something in the subject for the viewer's eye to settle on before moving away to explore the wider scene.

 

John, I must disagree a bit with your position that the image "lacks a focal point of interest." On PN and elsewhere, I've viewed superlative landscape shots that lack what you mentioned. To me, the color palette and the lighting are enough to hold a viewer's eye and interest. I do agree, though, that usually a photograph taken hurriedly doesn't end well.

Adolfo, I agree with Mike. Given the title of this thread, I do applaud your effort.

Of course it has a point of interest. The shadows point you right to it and it's light, so your eye is drawn in.

Honestly, KMAC, I don't see any blown out highlights anywhere within the frame.

 

I should have said "over-exposed". I've had the same problem with my landscapes often enough and finally concluded I need to drop the exposure a 1/2 to 2/3rd of a stop with any landscape that has even small highlights. Conrad said it's the "point of interest", but it's over-exposed, should it be like that, or could the scene have been exposed differently to reduce over-exposure in the distance there ?. I'm sure Adolfo wants to learn, as I do, I watch, read and learn as much as I can on Photo.net, thanks to it's experienced members.

Mr. Linder, Mr. Hoffman and kmac thank you. I’m trying and learning as much as possible daily and I really appreciate your comments and criticism. I see what everyone has mentioned and even see something’s that have not been mentioned. It is all a learning process and I only want to get better. Thank you again.

John, I must disagree a bit with your position that the image "lacks a focal point of interest." On PN and elsewhere, I've viewed superlative landscape shots that lack what you mentioned. To me, the color palette and the lighting are enough to hold a viewer's eye and interest.

 

I did make it clear in my reply that what I said was not a criticism of the OP's image, which works well as a record of the atmosphere and contra jour lighting of the attractive scene. All I was trying to suggest was that many pictures benefit from having stronger individual features to provide visual interest and give the eye a lead in to aid exploration of the frame.

As always, Alfonso, I learn just as much from reviewing a 'request for critique' as you do. Thanks for posting and giving us all the opportunity to learn from each other!

Better ?

Please see my 5 last photos and you will notice that there is a point of interest next to my shadows.

 

Point and shoot is too easy, good for smartphone geeks. They TAKE pictures.

 

As a photographer you should take your time and make a composition. You MAKE a photograph.

 

2 completely different activities.

Mr. Claude, I did sit and compose the image. I took several test shots from different vantage points, at different eye levels and even waited for the sun to be at a different level in the sky. I do respect what you have to say and the critique, and moreso enjoy the 2nd to last sentence: "You MAKE a photograph.".

 

To everyone who has continued to post comments/critiques, thank you again. I will be posting something soon again. Hopefully I am able to capture what I see in my minds eye.

Mr Cruz,

You had a lot of interesting elements to work with, as well as some challenges. If you could return in time and retake the photo, what, if anything, would you do differently?

I like the backlighting and contrast. The tops of the trees cut off near the top bother me as does their leaning in too much. Signing your name into the picture distracts me from it and pulls my eyes away from the subject of the photo. I wonder if you moved over to the left to shoot and tried to make the orange trees the subject with the backlighting if that would have been more interesting than having the standard green trees in the middle? Nice shot.

Mrs. Weishaupt, very good question. First, I think I would like to try to play with a ND filter or maybe a circular polarizer. I think that the tonality of the overall image would be better. Second, I think I would have used a stepped focus system, to make the DOF clearer. Right now, if I zoom in on the original image, it is not as sharp as I would like it to be. Lastly, I think I would have moved around a bit more and tried to make something a central focal point. As many of the critiques here have posted, there is no real focal point outside of the light source in the middle. Maybe having something would bring the viewers eyes there, instead of darting around the entire image.

 

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Klein. I actually edited the image and straightened all the trees out. It was a nice challenge. I was not aware that this is something all landscapers do!! Bravo to you all if so. I understand the signature on the image, and on the straightened one, I have left it off. I have not posted it, because I wanted an objective view of what I took, without massive edits. The focal point issue, yes I can agree. As I posted to Mrs. Weishaupt, small changes would have made a difference.

 

Thank you for the critique.

As many of the critiques here have posted, there is no real focal point outside of the light source in the middle. Maybe having something would bring the viewers eyes there, instead of darting around the entire image.

 

I'd like to offer some food for thought on this.

What constitutes a focal point/point of interest will vary. Isn't the interplay between light, shadow, and color the point of it all? When you sit in this park, do your eyes look around, or do they look for a point? They probably look around first, then zero in on many things. A good landscape image invites exploration of the environment. You photo does that, and does it nicely. A person walking through a scene doesn't necessarily make it more interesting or offer a "point of interest", but can make it cluttered and serve as an unnecessary distraction. When people are in a landscape photo they often become the subject and the landscape itself fades to the background. It's something to think about. You're doing fine, enjoy it.

I'd like to offer some food for thought on this.

What constitutes a focal point/point of interest will vary. Isn't the interplay between light, shadow, and color the point of it all? When you sit in this park, do your eyes look around, or do they look for a point? They probably look around first, then zero in on many things. A good landscape image invites exploration of the environment. You photo does that, and does it nicely. A person walking through a scene doesn't necessarily make it more interesting or offer a "point of interest", but can make it cluttered and serve as an unnecessary distraction. When people are in a landscape photo they often become the subject and the landscape itself fades to the background. It's something to think about. You're doing fine, enjoy it.

 

Nobody wants to critique my photo, I wonder why?

 

May I benefit from your extended expertise and get some comments? I would be most happy for food for thought on it. Maybe our other colleagues here will fallow, who knows?

 

Thank you in advance!