Columbia Basin Wetlands

Your comments and suggestions are most welcomed.

I love the serenity of the shot, great colors. I must get across the mountains more often. And "NO", I don't think the top of the picture should be cropped off, as some will be saying.

Did you have some water spots on your lens? High up in the gray clouds I see two perfectly round darker gray spots. These could easily be removed.

Honestly, I'm having trouble with this one. I do like the differences in the clouds, and how the bright cloud is linking up with the water, but I'm feeling a bit emotionaly distant from it all. Maybe I'm just used to the lower angle shots... but of course, a lower angle would have destroyed the relationship between cloud and water... mmm...

Thanks Shawn for your comments. I fixed the rain drop problem. I noticed it only after posting this morning and didn't have time to fool with it until now. I am very pleased this resonated with you.

 

Stephen there is something distancing about this image. Perhaps the far away look in the sky on the horizon. Or maybe the upper clouds just seems oppressive. I'd be most interested if you could articulate this further. Cheers...

David, far be it from me to suggest that this should be cropped. I like it just as it is. The wetlands have a wonderful range of colours. My suggestion would be to try for a better cloud pattern. The sky is the weaker element in this image I don't see symmetry or repetition or anything to make them earn their real estate.

Jeff do you like this one better. Here the cloud has better definition. To me the correspondence in the original between the Lake and negative space of the cloud is lost in the 2nd posting, but the cloud is stronger. What to you think?

For me I like this one better. The clouds at the far end of the scene seems to depict distance much better. I find a corrilation between the color of the sky and the water and the shape of the clouds and the shore. The clouds at the top suggest what the near shore would look like. I also like the darkness of the clouds because it is telling me that behind this beautiful world the tranquility can be easily disturbed by a storm. But then again I have a very active imagination.

 

Don

David, both versions of the shot are very nice, but I prefer the alternative version for the separation of the small clouds from the horizon. The lack of that separation is the only (minor) point of unsatisfaction with this fine shot.

I am about to have an each way bet here. I prefer the original for the wetlands. It is more vibrant. In the alternative, the clouds are definitely stronger. They are both fine shots as they stand and you are certainly getting a lot of these big sky shots looking great. In a number of your recent shots, there has been symmetry between the cloud and land which this one doesn't have.

Its tough to say what isn't make it work for me... I hadn't considered the role of the smaller clouds on the horizon. There is an interesting sense of scale between them and the larger ones. Maybe the sky is just overpowering the land? A high height isn't necessarily a bad thing. You've got that working before.

 

The alternative is interesting. The water isn't as good, but the reeds... there's an nice curve to the foreground, the reeds seem to be leaning forward, but at the same time, pointing up towards the curve between cloud and sky. I think I'm prefering the alternative, even if you are loosing that link between the water and bright cloud. The reeds seem to be adding slightly to the feeling of perspective. In the original, they aren't doing much at all. Hope that helps.

I want to thank you Shawn, Don, Leigh, Jeff and Steve for contributing to this discussion. Sometimes it is amazingly subtle issues that either make an image work or not. I thank you all for making the effort to help me figure this one out. While I like this image with its beautiful grasses, I have to agree there is something about it that isn't working. My feeling is that it is perhaps the sky with its heavy clouds and large negative space that creates some unease. The second image's sky works better and has a much reduced negative space, but the grasses aren't as well placed. A shot that would have got the best of both of these images would have probably worked. I didn't get that shot though. Again, I am really fascinated by what a large difference small changes make in our world of image making. Thanks everyone...

Coming late to the show, I cannot contribute much more, your last statement is absolutely right. Why not a composite of the sky of the second shot, with the ground of this shot - let me play devil`s advocate. Same day, same lighting, same lens etc. Ok a fake, but I wouldn`t hesitate to try it out. Regards; Carsten

David, The sky IMO are too overpowering the scene.

 

The brown tones on earth are so very beautiful, the water and the lower sky as well I tried to crop them a bit(even Shawan said no with a capital N...), I hope you don't mind. do you think it is better that way? for me it is. Pnina

Carsten it is never too late for you and Pnina. You both have come in with good ideas. Carsten I will have to try your idea with the composite. I'll let you know. Pnina, actually your crop suggestion resolves some of these issues. I think I like it much better. Sometimes it is hard to make the cut. It is easier for someone else. Thanks Pnina...

Thank you David, thats how all of us are developing our skills...

David, the reeds and water are very good and also the clouds. There is however to my mind a problem of integration. The top and bottom each seem to attract attention but the composition does not provide a connection between them. My suggestion would be to move to the right so that the clouds can be seen coming down to the horizon - something like this which I have done v quickly using my PS hammer and pliers.

I like to join this pleasent and interesting discussion with this fine piece of youre art David. I think it is clear we have kind of two competing elements, and some solutions have passed. As an addition to the possible ways to work this image out more I suggest to crop something of the foreground. Though you miss the nice diagonal line in the right corner, the attention is laid more to the distance rather than up and down.

Thanks Colin and Hans for your suggested solutions. I have enjoyed this discussion and the different approaches taken by all of you. I haven't tried Carsten's solution yet but so far I like Pnina's crop the best. With it the results offer a more intimate feel about the image. Anyway, I do appreciate your ideas and creativity. From all of you I learn...

First off, I like the scene, and carefully restrained colors and tones.

 

I think I prefer the original crop. Seems to me the challenge is with the sky not overwhelming the foreground subject matter, and I guess I feel the image is a little shy on foreground. I like the leading line from bottom right through the greens and yellows, and how it takes the eye up to the start of the clouds on the left edge of the frame. But I then have trouble with the jagged shape of the main cloud - its edge throws my eye all over the place, and I end up in the grey at the top left with a sense of relief ... but it's all grey!

 

I think the shape of the basalt cliffs in the background is also challenging - they're almost too angular, and the vertical break in the cliff in the center of the horizon works as an interruption. It's one of a repetition of drops in the horizon beginning on the left, but it's so much more distinct than the others that it really stands out.

 

So, my conclusion is to say "tricky shot." Not quite right, but not quite wrong either. It certainly gives a whopping sense of space and sky!

 

Best, Jeremy.

wow!!! Totally perfect,my friend.A great long sky,and a fantastic light and colors on the land

Fine shot David. I would not go with the crop of the foreground; it places the water to close to the edge of the frame and begins to feel cramped.

 

All you need is a rainbow - "connection" problem solved ;- )

 

cheers,

Aaron

I find this stunning as is.