Photo of the Week - #31 - 4/18/22

• Photo of the Week is a member-run feature.
  
• The photo is posted anonymously. If photographers wish, they may identify themselves in a comment.
  
• This is not my photo.
  
• Comment on and discuss the photo or any aspect of it in whatever way you choose.
  
• If you wish to submit a photo, please PM me with either an embedded photo or a link to one. Include a title if you want one to appear. It will go into the pool and eventually be posted as a Photo of the Week.
  

A rather mundane landscape image

 

Not very interesting as presented, but the photo has some intriguing elements in the reflected trees and sun, and the S curve in the water. I think that it could be improved by cropping out the less interesting parts, such as the blank sky and the sunlit path on the far right, and perhaps converting to black and white. I would do something like this, although it is probably getting away from the photographers vision of the scene.

Well I’m sure it’s a lovely scene… the photo doesn’t seem to capture it super well and that orange-y blob (the sun, I assume?)

definitely detracts from it- tho I do like the reflections.

 

Not to be unkind, it does take some fortitude to submit a photo for review and critique. Kudos to the photographer for that at the very least. I’d love to see more from this person.

I like the scene, the reflections, the depth suggested by the meandering river and the contrast between dark and light (and the transition between these in the distance). I also like the small section of more turbulent (or wind-blown) water that breaks up the generally smooth surface. It's probably not a 'gallery photo' but - because I often take similar photos ;) - one IMHO well worth taking and posting here.

 

Looking more closely (2nd time around) I noticed what appear to be 2 tubes/cables dangling from a tree just left of center and ending in 'cups' that seems to be floating on the water. These are also reflected. I have no idea what they might be. On the right bank, there also seems to be some kind of pole (or dead tree) sprouting from the grass. Both are (to me) curious details in an otherwise placid 'pastoral' scene.

 

It's a photo that I think can be improved with a bit of PP. My first impression (1st time around) was the photo was 'dark' in the sense that I couldn't see much texture in the deeper shadows left and right. So for the scene as a whole, lightening the shadows just a touch shows more texture and adds interest.

 

A completely different approach (2nd time around) would be to focus on the transition from 'dark' to 'light'. In that case, I would suggest cropping out the lighter foreground area on the left bank. There's plenty of room for cropping at the bottom. The result, I imagine, would be a dark 'frame' (at least left, right and bottom) through which - almost as in a tunnel - the lighter areas of the left and right banks are visible in the middle distance and at 'the end of the river' in the far distance.

 

No judgment on this, but I notice that the photo was taken on an older (2007) compact camera in - I suspect - full/semi-automatic mode. At least an aperture setting of f/2.8 is not typical for 'landscape' photos. If this is true, then the center-weighted exposure metering (default for compact cameras) probably accounts for the 'darker' areas outside the center.

 

I take more and more photos with my mobile phone on 'fully automatic' and I usually have no idea what the 'settings' are but the results are usually OK. Even using my DSLR on 'walkabout', I usually set my ISO to match the weather, set my aperture (in aperture priority mode) for the kind of photos I want to take and I keep an eye on the shutter speed. So I certainly don't adjust my settings for each individual photo. I've met (and have read about) landscape photographers who often use a tripod and do indeed adjust their camera settings at each location. Usually to get the maximum DOF or to get photos with different aperture settings they can later 'focus-stack'. I don't think this photo falls into this specialist 'landscape' category.

 

I shoot in 'RAW' and any further adjustments to exposure (too bright, too dark) I do in PP. I suspect that this photo was taken with a similar approach: nice scene, take a well-framed photo. As mentioned, I think a bit of post-processing can work wonders.

 

To the photographer: please forgive me if I've made completely the wrong assumptions! As always, I've learned a whole lot from reviewing your photo. Thanks for the opportunity!

 

Mike

I had a look and had to look again.

Normally I refrain from saying "I would have done it this way or the other way" because I may be completely wrong. Only the author can provide details about what she saw and about her intention when composing and exposing.

Nevertheless, as Sam has pointed out previously, there's an educational element on photo.net, so for one moment I will assume that my external viewpoint may be useful.

I will start from the assumption that normally a photographer composes a photograph to guide the eye of the viewer towards a certain focal point within the frame. There are different techniques to achieve this: using lines in the picture; using darker and lighter areas; placing certain relevant elements, which want to be put under the spotlight, within the geometry of the frame; using colours according to the Gestalt principles.

 

With this I am not saying that pictures should be composed according to certain rules, on the contrary, the photographer has the chance to pick certain tools to achieve certain results or not.

 

That said, I have a question about what I should watch in this picture. The bright part of the river may act as a visual lead, but I don't see towards which object. The bright spot attracts my eye, but I am not clear what its visual content shall be. A great part of the picture is dark, with little details and little information on what the picture wants to show us. Or what we should look at.

The eye can be led, for sure. It can also be jolted by elements in a photo. That can be a plus when approached with awareness of such an effect. There is a potentially dark, brooding quality to this landscape, intruded upon by the flash of the sun’s reflection and the hole that is the patch of sky. Rather than approach this as a more typical landscape photo, I’d be tempted to see if I could wring anything out of the dynamics already present. Perhaps a Japanese-like, high contrast approach, playing up the discomfort of the imperfect. Then again, a more relaxing landscape might be the goal here. If so, just keep experimenting with getting a sun flare to feel organic and keep in mind how an empty sky can pull at the eye.

Sam’s reflections are appropriate.

The sunny patch has a reason to be and also placing the sky in context is worth considering.

Overall I would consider whether the picture needs to be this gloomy.

A great thing about photography is sometimes a photo just doesn't work and you can take another. This is a lovely scene, and it could be interpreted in many different ways, a zen like approach etc. But I don't think it can in this photograph, as it just has too many problems. Part of the process is being aware of where the light is, how bright the sky will be and reflections etc.

This isn't a bad photo, but it strikes me as one of those images where you had to be there to appreciate what was in front of the camera and the image doesn't convey successfully what the photographer was seeing and feeling at the time that caused him/her to take this picture. Having made many these myself, I can relate...

Condescending remarks. Not helpful for the photographer..

 

It is a bad photo. Poor exposure and boring.

 

Too much kissing, which does not help the photographer to move on, with their Art/Vision of photography

 

Sometimes, and many times, you have to be cruel to be kind.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Allen Herbert

Everyone has taken a bad photo, that didn't convey what they wanted to or what attracted them to it in the first place. There's no shame, there's nothing wrong with the photographer, it's not a bad thing, it's just an unsuccessful photo. Yo can only learn from it. Do that and move on. Take more photos.

I would not label this photo as “bad” or “good”.

 

Let’s figure out how the photographer stood in front of the scene. First of all we need to keep in mind that the human eyes have a much wider exposure latitude than any sensor or film. I stand in front of this stream and basically capture all the details in the light and dark areas. Then I make my choices on composition, the portion of sky, of water, of trees and bank.

And then I have my picture, run my processing software and I need to figure out what to do with white balance, exposure, contrast, blacks, whites, shadows, highlights. I also have the choice of changing the hues and the toning.

 

Returning to my spectator role: I just can’t figure this all out, I would have to ask. And I don’t have a context, i.e. a series, a sequence, a story, which would give me more information about the scenario and/or the intention. Just this picture there is. Therefore, unable to ask anything about the genesis, the thoughts, the actions which produced this picture, I can merely react to it as such. Expressing my curiosities, but that’s it.

 

That is why we are told that pictures have to stand on their own feet, in one way or the other.

Edited April 25, 2022 by je ne regrette rien

Everyone has taken a bad photo, that didn't convey what they wanted to or what attracted them to it in the first place. There's no shame, there's nothing wrong with the photographer, it's not a bad thing, it's just an unsuccessful photo. Yo can only learn from it. Do that and move on. Take more photos.

Condescending remarks

 

What makes you say that the remarks are condescending? I strongly feel that the remarks were sincere and constructive.

Is anyone taking ownership of this photo?

It looks like the answer is, no.

 

The idea for this forum was that the photographer would have the choice to remain anonymous or not.

"Condescending remarks" Allen.

 

"What makes you say that the remarks are condescending? I strongly feel that the remarks were sincere and constructive."

michaellinder

 

So do I. I was generalizing. I was not particular referring to Barry's comments. Barry, is a top class photographer, and from my interactions with him, a kind person.

 

I was referring to condescending remarks, which does not help a photographer, to move on, with their photography.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Allen Herbert

If you ask for critique....Why be anonymous?

 

Think, learning curve. None of us are masters of photography .

 

Although .some like to think so. );)

Wow, thanks for the kind remarks. And yes, my critique was intended to be helpful to the photographer. I've taken and take lots of photos that just don't work. Some can be worked and something interesting comes out of it, but some just lack interest, so I move on.