qiang_li

I want to thank everyone for the great inputs. I learned more from this discussion than reading a book about composition. I wish there was a forum just for this kind discussions, especially for amateurs.

<p>

I can volunteer to maintain such a forum on my workstations but I don't know what kind of software that photo.net is using. It is really neat. Is it in public domain or commercial?

FOLLOW UP

I digitally cropped the photo in a number of ways according to the suggestions and my own taste. Here they are and please let me know which one you like best.

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle1.jpg"> Try 1 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle2.jpg"> Try 2 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle3.jpg"> Try 3 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle4.jpg"> Try 4 </a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle5.jpg"> Try 5 </a> (I like this one best) <br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle6.jpg"> Try 6 (Just the tree trunk) /a><br>

<a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/castle/castle7.jpg"> Try 7 </a> (The castle was removed) <br>

Thank you all for the suggestions! I agree that the big tree on the right is too big and its color doesn't go with the rest of the photo. I sometimes look at the photo by covering the big tree, or a part of it, with my hand, it feels better.

<p>

Some answers to the questions raised:

<p>

I did not use flash. The big tree on the right was red+brown.

<p>

The lighting was strange given the time and direction in which the photo was taken. The camera was facing northeast at 4pm. The overcast was pretty bright that day. To my 2-o'clock was the open space of the huge lake and there were some snow mountains around. To my left was deep forest so it was dark. So it looked that the light came from the east at 4pm.

<p>

The photo was scanned in from a 4x6 print with an HP ScanJet 3C and CorelPaint. The only thing I did after scanning it in was to sharpen it by 4% so it would look more like what on the print. It still doesn't look as sharp but close. The online image does have a bit higher contrast than the print on my two monitors.

<p>

About the sugguestion of using a longer focal length, that was my first reaction, too, when I saw the scene. I mounted my 80-200 zoom (the plastic one which I have exchanged for a 70-210D) and pull the castle in, but it didn't show the nature of the scene -- it lost the

distance and the surrounding of the scene. It looked like <a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/tahoe1.jpg"> this </a>(I digitally cropped the photo), only even flatter in the zoom. So I changed the lens and shot the photo at about 60mm focal length. I guess I should have zoomed in a bit more and leave only a part of the big tree at the edge of the picture.

<p>

I guess this is one of the cases which Philip calls "near-and-far" setting, except that the subject to emphasize is at the far end to show the vast surroundings. I wonder what are the general technigues of handling this. I guess openning up the lens to blur the things close might help, or, catch some special lighting (with a lot of luck) on the subject will help, too. Suggestions?

<p>

Thanks!

I was visiting Lake Tahoe a few weeks back and saw a little castle, through the woods, at the bottom of a hill next to the water. It gave me a nice feeling of being in a scene of a fairy tale. So I took a shot. When I look at the result, the picture seems to be too busy and does not convey the soothing feeling. I'd appreciate it very much if someone would tak a look at the photo at <a href="http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/tahoe.jpg"> http://lamp.scu.edu/~qli/tahoe.jpg </a>, and let me know what you would do to improve it.

<p>

The photo was taken at about 4pm, facing northeast. The sky had some overcast. I focused on the castle, which is almost infinity. It was taken with a Nikon N70 with a 35-105 zoom, f8 and 1/30 sec, Kodak Royal Gold 100 film.

<p>

Thanks!