spoli

It is hard to say who does a better job here: the author or mother nature. I would say both. The place you captured must be even more overwhelming when sit there and see it with your own eyes and feel it with your heart.

The composition is great, the light is perfect and colors are beautiful.

Excellent work!

I like this one. Good composition, much better format (being a bit conservative I still like 3:2 and 4:3 more than 16:9) and a nice scene.

It also stands the B/W test reasonably well without too much additional processing. In the end, the subject is more about light and shapes than color. However, that touch of blue makes a difference. See for yourself (compare with the B/W version).

Overall, nice work.

I struggled to find something that really stands in this landscape. Maybe a better title for a start?

Not necessarily a bad composition but there is something missing or not right. I'm puzzled by the square format - probably resulting from cropping. Was this format selected intentionally? There are situations where the square format is actually used artistically to communicate something. Here I don't see it.

The presence of more than two planes (i.e. foreground and background) is always desired in landscape photography and this image has at least three. But the hazy atmosphere didn't help the further and even the middle-ground plane isn't punchy enough. The only thing that helps is the foreground with its orange opening that winds down nicely.

The final comment is on light: rarely the middle of the day offers too much for the landscape photographer. In most of the cases, the lack of shadows produces the "flat" space (2D) sensation. Want a more fulfilling experience? Try sunset or sunrise; even the atmosphere is usually clearer, the contrasts are better and the light warmer.

However, I encourage you to persevere. And to take my critique lightly. In the end I'm just another amateur that makes a lot of mistakes but aspire to learn something every day.

Some will argue that using the polarizing filter excessively is a photographic mistake. I don't agree. In some cases this "mistake" can be used artistically.

Maybe the dark sky is the whole point: the contrast between the mountain and the sky enhances the idea of altitude while revealing even more the features of the landscape -- i.e. the peak covered in layers of snow.

I tried to play with it by reducing the darkness of the sky first: the picture started to look dull. Then I realized that this photo would have been great in B/W as well. I converted the original and the modified images to B/W and tried to compare the results. Be yourself the judge. In my opinion the original still stands either in color or B/W.

Just my two cents...

Overall, nice landscape and... great hike!

It almost looks like computer generated art in its simplicity.

Don't take me wrong! The simple fact that that the computer is only used for representation proves my point. You managed to create an almost perfect composition just by finding this place and visualizing its artistic potential before taking the shot.

What is the story behind this photo?

Thank you for sharing your work with us.

Inspired and well executed. This scene has everything: subject, light, composition and life. And beyond all, it communicates with the viewer emotionally.

Great work!

Equipment permitting: I would have used a bouncing flash -- a white ceiling or a white wall in the back is always a great help. I also see a piece of black furniture on the right side... Would it have been possible to use it as a background? This way the shadows would have disappeared and the lilies would have been more enhanced ("popping-out" better).

However, for a point-and-shot camera using its embedded flash this capture looks very good.

Nice frozen action. Great shot!

Michel, I wouldn't change the lighting at all... Nor the aperture.

Based on the geography of the place (the sea is facing West), the image was captured after the sunset in a hazy atmosphere - hence the lack of contrast. Bringing out the light on the old house would change this very moment of the evening which may not have been the intention of the author.

Also F16 or F22 will probably reduce the overall sharpness even more because of the diffraction at small apertures (you will be disappointed as much as I was when seeing the results of a sharpness test at different apertures); you would require a much better equipment for the focus you suggested (probably a full frame format or larger with a much better lens). I would say that F8 or F11 should be optimal (must take multiple shots and decide later).

Plus, the blurred stones in the foreground add a sense of space without sacrificing their texture too much (the one on the left has enough texture anyway).

Just my 2 cents.

To the other Michel: nice piece of work.

No offense, this photo reminds me of Ansel Adams' work. Please take this as a compliment because “Imitation is at least 50 percent of the creative process” as Jamie Buckingham once said.

The B/W approach combined with a good light and the right filter, a fine composition and such a magnificent place like Canadian Rockies made this a really beautiful landscape photo. Keep the good work.

Scanned from a color slide made in... 1982 when I was still a student.

The slide was almost lost: washed out, scratched and without chances

to get something out. It took me several days to manually restore some

of its original qualities. Aside from its sentimental value, this

photo remains an example of a lucky shot, taken with a cheap camera

without any hope for a good outcome.

I would really appreciate ideas on how to restore old slides.

As usual, a few words of advice and comments will make a difference.

Thank you

This is one of three shots tried with the same subject, in the same

light, varying only the position and the focal distance. In the end,

the good old 50 mm (=80mm on my camera) seemed to work best. Shorter

focal distance distorted the view and the proportions, longer made the

house look too big.

I will appreciate any comments. Thank you.