Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password   Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens   Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens   Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379 FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell   end    No Foreground

Camperjim Online • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #1 · No Foreground A great landscape is supposed to have an interesting foreground, midground and background region. I have lots and lots of images where I liked the scenery but just had nothing in the foreground to add interest. Often the boring foreground is a lake -- just water, no reflections or interest. In this case I have a mountain scene with miles of featureless dirt and sagebrush and no way to get a closeup of individual plants. I guess this sort of image will never fall into the great landscape category, but I would like to end up with the best travel snapshot I can have. I often can't decide whether to keep the boring foreground to provide some sense of place or just crop it out. Here is an example with two different crops. Which works better?   Canon EOS REBEL T3i    163 mm    f/11.0    1/1000 sec    200 ISO    0.0 EV   Oct 24, 2012 at 04:55 AM

RustyBug Online • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #2 · No Foreground Just a little bit less FG aggressive crop, so that you still show a sliver in front of the foothills. A trim off the top to balance to taste. Oct 24, 2012 at 09:10 AM

ben egbert Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #3 · No Foreground 163mm on a crop is a telephoto shot. Takes really clear air to pull that off. Even though there is a large swath of mountain shown here, its not a traditional scape. That being said, it sort of falls outside the traditional scape and becomes something else. Sort of like a mountain macro. (just an attempt to illustrate my point). I don't think much of the rules anyway, but I think what I said eliminates them because it would not apply if this is not a traditional landscape. Oct 24, 2012 at 02:46 PM

sbeme Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #4 · No Foreground either your second version or Kent's could work. I lean towards your cropped version as it simplifies the image with a strong play of the brown foreground hills against the distant blue mountains with echoing shapes. With Kent's crop the dark patch becomes an additional subject, strongly draws my eye to the bottom but without much detail. To me, Kent's version now makes a subject of layers of plains and layers of mountains. A different message but effective as well. Scott Oct 24, 2012 at 02:55 PM

Search in Used Dept.

sadja Offline • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #5 · No Foreground Jim, I would crop just below the dark trees and lose about 1/2 the sky. Oct 24, 2012 at 04:04 PM

Oregon Gal Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · No Foreground Jim, I think a curves boost would add the extra pop needed. I also used Nik ColorEFX4, Detail Extractor at a low opacity of 10 to extract a little more detail. Oct 24, 2012 at 05:31 PM

Camperjim Online • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · No Foreground Since the file you are working with is so small, I cannot see much difference. I don't have Nik software. Can you explain how a detail extractor works? Does this enhance contrast? Oct 24, 2012 at 06:51 PM

Oregon Gal Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #8 · No Foreground Camperjim, the Detail Extractor pulls more detail from an image and you have an option to boost contrast as well. I usually leave the contrast setting to a default of +6. I also used Dodge and burn for lightning the foreground highlights and did a little burning to the shadow areas of the image which helps to accentuate the shapes. I am a fan of Nik products and recommend highly Color EFEX4 and Silver EFEX 2 for B/W conversions but a lot of the same things can be accomplished in PS. Oct 25, 2012 at 03:17 AM

	end FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Lost your password?