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

Discussion in 'Seeking Critique' started by adolfo.cruz, Nov 7, 2021.

  1. 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.
     
    michaellinder likes this.
  2. Thank you Mr. Hoffman.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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!
     
    sjmurray and michaellinder like this.
  5. Thank you both, kmac and Mr. Morrell.
     
  6. 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.
     
    Jean-Claude and mikemorrell like this.
  7. Thank you, Mr. Seaman.
     
  8. Honestly, KMAC, I don't see any blown out highlights anywhere within the frame.
     
  9. 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.
     
    sjmurray likes this.
  10. Adolfo, I agree with Mike. Given the title of this thread, I do applaud your effort.
     
    mikemorrell likes this.
  11. 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.
     
    michaellinder and dcstep like this.
  12. 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.
     
    michaellinder likes this.
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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.
     
    michaellinder likes this.
  15. 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!
     
    michaellinder likes this.
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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.
     
    michaellinder likes this.
  18. 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?
     

Share This Page

1111