The hills here in northern california are alive with color this time of year, and I can't resist. I would love some thots on the composition of this one, and if you find it interesting (always a challenge in landscape photography), or, ho-hum.
Another beauty, Alan. I wish I had the same opportunities; I admire how well you are capturing these scenes. Interesting choice of lens; not your typical landscape lens (though I have used mind a few times).
Perhaps a bit too much darkness on the right, but I am at a loss to make any suggestions. Guess I'd like to see what was a bit more off to the left. Light is great thru the trees.
Scott G
Thanks for your comments gentlemen. Scott, in regard to the long lens, I find myself using it more and more all the time for my landscapes. With the long focal length, I find that I can zoom in, if you will, on many more areas from the same setup than I can with a normal or wide angle lens, selecting scenes within the scene. As Bob noted, this revised image has the hot spot on the dead tree trunk in the lower left corner cloned out (I really didn't notice that before, thank you), and just for the fun of it, I've changed the frame color per your other comment. Always fun to try new things.
Oh, and I do prefer the critique forum to the others for the very reason Scott noted: more detailed, and helpful, critiques. Which is what it's all about!
Alan - although it is hard to tell from this size picture - it looks a bit soft. I am not sure why - either because you focused very short or used too high an fstop. My experience in reading is that beyond f16 with a 1.6x camera body (that you have) you start to get significant defraction. I usually am reluctant to go beyond f11 for this reason.
You might consider cloning out the bottom left tree intruding.
The composition is good and the light is good and there is good interest from foreground to background but it looks too soft for me.
I would add to Scott's comments re soft - as I played around last night I could never get the foreground trees to sharpen - I sort of assumed a combination of a breeze and shutter speed...don't know if that was the case or due to something else.
Alan, please have a look at it without the top part - i.e. get rid of the sky - and tell me whether or not you think that works. Then try again without any of the background hill. It really seems to change the character of the shot (for the better, I think).
Everyone's comments are wonderful; the very reason that I like posting images on this forum. And I will never object to anyone altering images and showing me different perspectives.
I did notice the softness as Scott and Bob noted, and as Bob hinted, I lost the crispness due to the windy conditions, which was compounded by the long lens. I should know better, but the lighting at the time was irresistable; but, nonetheless, it's definitely a problem, and duely noted.
In regard to the cropping, that was one my intiial concerns. Do I leave the sky in - adding more dimension? How about the dark triangular shaded hillside on the right? Alan's crops - taking out the sky in no. 1 and removing the distant hills in no. 2 certainly changes the mood and character. Personally, I think that I still like the depth that the background hills add to the image, and it adds some needed contrast to the sunlit portions, making them a little more unique. As for the sky, well the jury's still out. While it adds one more layer of depth, it may be distracting.
I'm going to keep my eye on the area and see if I can get similar lighting without the wind. It's obvious to me that I'm really going to have to work at getting sharper images to get past your discerning eyes.
Once again, thanks for all your comments. I truly do rely on you for serious input.
