Hi all

Ok not a first time poster, but this is my first topic displaying any of my images . I only recently got my first DSLR a few days ago and loving it so far, and already hanging out for a ultra wide sigma lol (this hobby really does burn holes in your pocket).

Well I dragged myself up before the crack of dawn this morning and tried my best at my first 'landscape' picture. Would just like to get as much C&C as I can on these images, honest opinions are all for the better and are really appreciated. Anyways I'm not sure about these two, they just don't seem to pop for me, would you say the small log as an anchor works with the images? Also do they seem a bit flat, I like the colour as they are and decided not to play with the saturation much, was this a good idea?

Any constructive criticism is appreciated Look forward to posting more images on this great forum soon.

Mike.

Nice colours.
'constructive criticism': your horizons are all slanted - easy fix in PP

Colors are nice. Horizon is at right spot. Reflections are nice.

I had to look several times to figure out what the object was on the right. I think you need a stronger foreground item (grass, rock, tree, bird) to make this more interesting. And it should be obvious and lead to the background.

Technically strong but needs more elements for my taste.

Like the colors and composition except for the objects in foreground. Not sure what they are. I would put them closer to the 1/3 and 1/3 intersection. They're so close to the corner and so indistinct they look like an afterthought. Placid water is soothing, excellent reflector of trees and sky. Excellent subject matter; I'd go there again and play with the placement of the foreground objects.

Thanks guys exactly the criticism I was after. Will definatley try and find a more interesting subject matter next time, have to keep that point in mind Scott, having the foreground lead into the background, I'll make it a point to try and work on that. Ill be sure to head down to this spot in a few days and try once again, will post up a version 2 once I do.

And ill also be sure to fix the slanted horizons too lol,

Thanks for the comments, feel free to add

A second look suggests that the details in background looks soft.

I am not sure what lens you are using but check out http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Focus 1/3 from where you are and do not go beyond f16 for best results.

Ah, didn't know that, thanks for that info and link Scott, will be sure to do that next time

I don't agree with Scott's 1/3 focus as a general rule. That leads to too much disappointment too often. Once upon a time it was widely tought that depth of field was 1/3 in front of the focus plane and 2/3 behind. In fact that is only true sometimes. Even when it is true it is based on the concept of hyperfocal distance but that too can lead to disappointment because the standard for sharpness that defines HFD was set many years ago and is no longer suitable - we can see and produce much sharper details.

The perceived sharpness of the this photo is determined by the trees in the background because there is almost nothing in the foreground. So focus at infinity and use an aperture that lets you resolve any foreground detail. e.g. if the focal length is 20mm and the aperture is f/10 then the photo will resolve anything that is at least 2mm big (20/10=2).

Shooting at f/32 is generally a waste as the lenses are far from being the sharpest at that aperture and diffraction will be eating away at fine detail.

Have a read of this article:
http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

- Alan