scottish landscapes - 04 "Land of Wonders"

great picture! i love the exposure of the shot. you havent made it too warm or too rich - it gives a very natural, appealing feel to the photo. which is relfected in the fact that you havent messed around with it in photoshop... or if you have done something with it youve kept it minimal. nice work

Fantastic colors

poop aside, the more I look at this the more I'm impressed that the subject is the foreground rock, the sky an accent and the castle an afterthought.

Quite a striking image! Very pleasing composition and palette.

A beautiful and very well done photo. The colors, exposure, and composition are flawless. This quality of image is far beyond my abilities as an amateur.

I see that you used the Canon 10-22mm. There's something about that lens that I can always recognize it's use in a photo. I have never been able to do that with another lens. Perhaps its the contast and the streaming, blooming quality of the images it produces? Who knows!

Lovely image! Makes me want to go to Scottland. Cheers!

Great Piotr! I like it very much and I can't wait when I'll get 10-22. IMO there is only one thing to correct - to dark sky almost unnatural, mayby 1stop ND could be better? Central rock is ok. Who said that every photo must be taken with a grid and every subject of interest placed perfectly on thirds? Mayby it would looking nicer but mayby cliche? We don't know. Piotr, you were there and you captured this beautiful land with your camera the best as you could. And that's it. Let's look and let's dream about Scotland... Sorry for my poor English.

You have to know how to use the 10-22mm before you can get fabulous photos with one. :-) I know from experience. I'm still learning to use mine. And you still need the basics ... lighting, composition, etc. ... and in order to get fabulous images like this, you need talent. I'm sure that Piotr would have gotten wonderful images at this spot with or without the 10-22mm.

I had to choose 2-stop grad ND because with a weaker one (0.3) I got some loss of information in the highlights (observed on a histogram). Camera was set on a tripod as the shutter speed was relatively slow - 1/4 second. The idea of exposure bracketing and further blending is really fine (I do it on some occasions), but with slow shutter speeds and clouds, water etc. moving fast there is always a risk that something will not match perfectly. I must say I really like my 10-22 lens - it gives me a lot of fun playing with a perspective. If only it had some tilt & shift capabilities - it would be my perfect one ;)

Piotr, a beautiful image with all the qualities that make a masterpiece. The lighting, details, composition etc. are all there. Congratulations, Sondra

This is fabulous. The contrast between colours, makes this image vibrant. Congratulations!

Wonderful lighting, framing, depth. I can't say enough nice things about the photo. Excellent.

Outstanding usage of the rule of thirds and leading line composition. The photo is nice and sharp and personally, I think the cropping is pretty much dead-on.

Very nice picture, exellent work. Congratulatios

Stunning capture! The light, composition & detail are impressive. Well done :)

like the light much, very nice shot, congrts on POW.

Very Beautiful. The color boost and high detail is perfect for postcards designed to attract your attention and make receipients wish they were there. I definately wish I was there. Thanks for the virtual vacation. All of your landscapes are great get aways.

i really like clouds on this photo. Clouds show me the strengh of the sea. But i'll like to feel the wind, i would like to meet it in this photo... thanks for this nice photo.

I like this scene , great colors and well seen , great moody effect! Looks good for a cover shot! Congrats!

Great shot

 

Mark

I like the strong diagonal depth lines that lead the eye around the photo. The clouds and castle are both interesting elements and the warm side light is dramatic.

 

Although I've seen many worse examples, the somewhat overdarkened sky produces an unnatural look because it's reflections on the water are lighter than the object itself.

 

This composition illustrates a common problem with with wide-angle landscapes: the scene is dominated by a relatively large uninteresting (and therefore distracting) foreground. No matter how well lit, any large object in the front and center of a scene must be worthy of the attention it attracts. I would have looked for a composition that included more of the small pools or more interesting rock formations. The other solution that I use when I'm not backpacking is to carry a lightweight ladder that enables compositions that feature more depth and can minimize the dominance of foreground objects if necessary.

I have been admiring this shot most of the week, but have had no time to comment. A

couple of things have struck me about it.

 

First, I see an awful lot of near/far landscapes posted here and rarely do they make any

sense. Rather, they just seem to be "oh, here is a cool thing in the foreground and

something else in the background" instead of relationships that make some sense. Here,

sense is made very well. I would agree that the foreground is a bit too much, which is

amplified by the some of the rocks detail. The foreground does become a bit more the

subject rather than a support to the main subject, as I read this.

 

Second, I really find, with photoshop and all of its great tools, that filters are not needed

except in very rare cases. The reason for my saying this is evident in the discussions here.

Polarizers create uneven skies and ND graduates generally create effects in areas we don't

want or need them. My sense, from this scene, is that there was no need for either filter

here to capture the scene in raw mode. Some strengthening of the sky could easily have

been done in post without the artificial feel. But that said, there is nothing awful here and

a little retouching, if desired, could easily adjust for most of the effects that seem to be

causing problems for many.

 

So, for me, I find this photo essentially very pleasing. The use of the shoreline and rocks

to draw one to the rock castle workes very well. The light is nice and the sky detail is nice.

 

(Actually, with reference to the sky, and I think it has been said that it is real, I do keep

looking at it and it seems the light is coming from the opposite direction on sky and

land--interesting!)

As I have commented previously, this is an outstanding seascape with sensational lighting. Personally I like the large foreground element which has interesting contours and textures, and it happens to have some great light falling on it. I have no problems with the lighting, shadows fall naturally and the sun seems to be coming from the left. The cloud cover seems to have evened out some of the lighting. I agree with the use of the 2 stop ND grad to darken the sky. As there are no clear reflections in the water, one cannot comment on whether reflections are lighter that the real image. It looks like the sky has been burned/highlights judging by the fine cloud textures but this is not to the detriment of the photo. I would clone out the bird poo in the foreground. That is the only thing I would change on this fine image.

I find it cliche' and boring. That's just me though.