p.1 #2 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
First, if possible more viewers might respond were the images posted directly to the forum - some folks do not pursue linked images. Also, one has all visible for comparison.
That said, my preferences are #s 3 & 4 because of the dynamics of the leading lines in the composition. #1 has no depth whatsoever, and #2, even with the depth, remains static. One other comment, and of course I was not there, but the color of the sand in #4 is not quite what one might expect - but perhaps that is the natural color?
p.1 #3 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
These would be more tourist snapshots than fine art landscapes, not that you claimed the latter but that's what I was expecting.
That said, #4 comes closest to being a proper landscape photo (albeit with too much sky; the mountaintops cut too close to the center line for rule-of-thirds comfort).
p.1 #4 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
Bob,
I believe I am only able to post images to the forum with the paid account (I am new and this is my impression). I wanted to get to know the community a bit before I decided to purchase an account.
Thank you for your feedback. How would you suggest, in the future, that I create depth with these images or not make them look static?
p.1 #6 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
odnanref wrote:
Bob,
I believe I am only able to post images to the forum with the paid account (I am new and this is my impression). I wanted to get to know the community a bit before I decided to purchase an account.
Thank you for your feedback. How would you suggest, in the future, that I create depth with these images or not make them look static?
Odnan
Yes about posting unless you have another host available (an edu account for instance) for linking. I believe there is a way to display the Flickr images directly, others have provided those instructions.
Horizontal lines generally = static unless depth of field is used to focus at one distance with the foreground and background blurred to a degree. I inadvertently clicked an arrow and an image of two camels popped up - _DSC_950 I think - both the foreground and background were OOF, camels in focus. Also gradation of light can be used - unable to download #4 but a slight gradient on sand, dark to light, front to top, would (might) complement the lines adding depth.
Also the sky can add depth - notice how often the sky overhead is a brilliant blue fading in vibrancy and color until nearly a gray/white at the horizon, adding depth to the image. Of course the degree to which you enhance nature is up to you
p.1 #8 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
I also like #4. My eye gets drawn to the hole in the sand about 1/4 in from the right. I would clone that out and eliminate the distraction but I do like the composition. I agree with plugsnpixels about the mountaintop line. But I like the shot a lot.
p.1 #10 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
Looking through your photostream, you've got several nice images that convey the vibe of the region (imo) better than the four you've presented. For me, #1 (of the four) is the most memorable. I might consider a crop to minimize the road distraction from the natural setting. I like the geometrics in play @ #2, but a different lighting/time of day could help that one a bit as well.
p.1 #12 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
I like #4 as well. However, I think that the subject matter of #2 is the most interesting. I feel that if the vantage point were lower (closer to the roof) and to the left, such that the perspective would have large squares in the front, leading diagonally to the green in the back, it would be more interesting. Also, the non-level horizon is a bit of a distraction for me.
p.1 #13 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
You do not need a paid account on FM to imbed pictures. To post a picture from flickr, you simply click on the "Share" icon just above the picture, then click on the Grab the Html Code. You usually are best going with the Medium/800 pixels wide size. Copy the entire link as it won't let you copy just part of it and paste it here like this (don't forget to add numbers):
<a href="http://www. flickr.com/photos/addictedtoglass/8683862321/" title="DSC_1019.jpg by addictedtoglass, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9 .staticflickr.com/8383/8683862321_e3577bba20_c.jpg" width="800" height="460" alt="DSC_1019.jpg"></a>
I added some spaces to the link above just so you can see what it looks like. Yo only need the img src:
p.1 #14 · which of these 4 scenic images do you prefer?
odnanref wrote:
Hi, these are very much tourist shots. I don't practice fine art landscape but do shoot landscapes when I travel.
Yes these look like tourist snapshots that could have been taken almost randomly with a cellphone camera. Most seem to have been shot midday with poor lighting. Compositions are not much better. So far most viewers seem to prefer #4 which is almost 50% plain, blue sky. The foreground details are not much better. These may be good reminders of a great trip but they are best not shared with anyone else. I am puzzled. Why have you posted these if you know they are basically tourist snapshots?
I don't want to be unkind, but if you are looking to improve and produce some good travel photos you have a long journey ahead of you before you worry about any serious critiques or comments. In addition to books, camera clubs, and workshops, there are a lot of online resources available. I can suggest two I like. Check out the BH event space videos. There are a hundred plus hour long videos on photography technique. Also consider the Scott Kelby TV/The Grid videos. I think there are about 100 but with a lot of advertisements.
When you post something for C&C, either post an image where you have a specific problem or question or post your best work.
