Yoda's house - FM Forums

Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2013 · Yoda's house

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Yoda's house

somewhere VT in his house found is

a bit hard to capture, it also is really sort of a fine detail type place so I'm not sure it translates so well to small sizes, even a full 1920 across image would just begin to reveal all the little fern and rock details, I went with using the larger size inline this time because of that, it's really a truly spectacular place

1.
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v90/p1750123790-5.jpg
2.
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v101/p1796337916-5.jpg
3.
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v112/p1679154999-5.jpg
4.
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v111/p1863843528-5.jpg
5.
http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v94/p1834944471-4.jpg

If those are too large try:
1
2
3
4
5

Edited on Aug 30, 2013 at 05:12 PM · View previous versions

Aug 30, 2013 at 02:47 AM

JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Yoda's house

I think you should post the proper size photos that follow our guidelines in here, and if you want to link larger ones, then link the larger ones. On top of posting the right sized ones in here, you should add frames to your shots, they would really present much better with a black or white framing.

Jim

Aug 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Jeffrey
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Yoda's house

You always post so many images that are nearly the same. Not finding too much interest here. Sorry.

Aug 30, 2013 at 04:47 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Yoda's house

JimFox wrote:
I think you should post the proper size photos that follow our guidelines in here, and if you want to link larger ones, then link the larger ones. On top of posting the right sized ones in here, you should add frames to your shots, they would really present much better with a black or white framing.

Jim

OK, I swapped them reversed to show smaller inline and larger as options. It was just in this case they are so much texture based images, about seeing millions of amazing detailed ferns all over, amazing textures in the peeling birch bark, etc., they are not scenic vista compositions, so that even something scrolling off the edge of a screen seemed like a much better presentation option to me than a smaller, less detailed image so I figured breaking the rules (which is said was allowed in special cases) made more sense this time (even the larger images don't really show enough detail in this to really get it quite across) other than presenting a bunch of green pixel scattered across rocks

Aug 30, 2013 at 05:09 PM

JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Yoda's house

skibum5 wrote:
OK, I swapped them reversed to show smaller inline and larger as options. It was just in this case they are so much texture based images, about seeing millions of amazing detailed ferns all over, amazing textures in the peeling birch bark, etc., they are not scenic vista compositions, so that even something scrolling off the edge of a screen seemed like a much better presentation option to me than a smaller, less detailed image so I figured breaking the rules (which is said was allowed in special cases) made more sense this time (even the larger images don't really...Show more →

That is a tricky combo for here, I can see your thought process for wanting to display the texture. But something for you you to think about... If the composition as a whole doesn't draw the viewer in, then having gobs of texture that has to be seen closer up just won't be that interesting either. First the composition has to work, then 2nd, the viewer can be drawn in closer and have more attention given to the shot as the textures draw them in even more.

But when shots are too large, and especially if any scrolling is needed, the viewer will rarely "get" the composition, since the viewer can't see the composition, they are only seeing parts of it. Thats why I suggested even further to use frames on your shots. Just like in an art gallery, the photos aren't surrounded by a bunch of stuff... no, it's a clean frame and clean wall space. Well this is your "online" gallery, and when images encompass the whole screen, now the image runs into tabs, and buttons, and colored objects, it's really hard to pull your image out of it without a lot of distractions.

Especially on scenes like these you presented where being in a forest is already busy enough, usually too busy, you want to simplify the area around it, and present it cleanly to those who are viewing it. Make any sense?

Jim

Aug 30, 2013 at 06:25 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Yoda's house

JimFox wrote:
But something for you you to think about... If the composition as a whole doesn't draw the viewer in, then having gobs of texture that has to be seen closer up just won't be that interesting either. First the composition has to work, then 2nd, the viewer can be drawn in closer and have more attention given to the shot as the textures draw them in even more.

True in part. Although some shots simply can look fairly whatever at tiny scale with no detail and then yet awesome as a large print. So I don't think it's quite so 100% universal and I think sometimes people are a little to used to the usual fairly clean and simple dramatic scenic overview type shot or maybe a careful presentation of a waterfall with some messy bits around the edges and are too quick too entirely write off everything else so all it is clean, simple scenic vista after vista even if they may be all wow type shots (many web galleries consist of 100% scenic overlook type shots and not a single thing else, sure they may all be glorious but they sometimes leave out the trees for the forest as it were and it's all 100% of the same style of shot). In some the art galleries around here I've seen some pretty messy woody shoots get a lot of acclaim as prints even though they don't have even a hint of any the classic composition that would grab you in even at 1" with little detail. It's a tricky call though.

The place was so wonderful lush and wild and tangled with ferns and sticks.

Sometimes just seeing cool interior parts of woods can be nice even if they are not a glorious mind-blowing scenic composition overlook shot. Not to make more of a regular any old composition and pretend it is more than it's not though.

But when shots are too large, and especially if any scrolling is needed, the viewer will rarely "get" the composition, since the viewer can't see the composition, they are only seeing parts of it. Thats why I suggested even further to use frames on your shots. Just like in an art gallery, the photos aren't surrounded by a bunch of stuff... no, it's a clean frame and clean wall space. Well this is your "online" gallery, and when images encompass the whole screen, now the image runs into tabs, and buttons, and colored objects, it's really hard to pull your image...Show more →

perhaps, I have to say that all to often the frames I've seen people use for online shots have tended to distract me from the shots a lot though, probably 90% of the time at least, but perhaps a very simple pure solid box frame here in this particular case could help, i'll have to give it a try and see how it works, trying to picture it, in this case perhaps it might.

Aug 30, 2013 at 07:44 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Yoda's house

And I guess also what I was trying to say is even if this sort of thing doesn't grab you compositionally (where it seems, for the first one to work mostly actually crazy small thumbnail size or very large print size, although even still it won't everyone's cup of tea), I still figured it would be cool for people to simply see such a lush fern and giant boulder paradise, even if they take it as just a a regular old snap shot. It really is a truly magical spot.

Aug 31, 2013 at 04:35 PM

JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Yoda's house

Yes, not to get distracted by the original size issue. I will say that #3 is my favorite from your group here. I am sure the others were magical looking in person. But that's often the challenge in a forest scene, to try and have a 2D photograph to represent the feeling that is present in the 3D world. #2 would be my favorite of the others.

Jim

Aug 31, 2013 at 04:48 PM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Yoda's house

JimFox wrote:
Yes, not to get distracted by the original size issue. I will say that #3 is my favorite from your group here. I am sure the others were magical looking in person. But that's often the challenge in a forest scene, to try and have a 2D photograph to represent the feeling that is present in the 3D world. #2 would be my favorite of the others.

Jim

You know I should've tried to take a 3D shot, it's hard to sense the depth of the boulders and ferns up the hillside in 2D.

Aug 31, 2013 at 08:04 PM

dswiger
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Yoda's house

Forest shots don't usually work well with just random greenery. The eye doesn't have a place to start.
That's why scenes with, say a stand of Aspen work, as there is space between the trees that often leads the eye through them, an implied line. Also with that space, there are patterns and contrasting colors.

I think the one shot that has some "dimensional" potential is #2 as the light upper left and the close/far trees help that. But without something else to break up the vegetation, and make it seem like you can see your way into the image, the view loses interest. A foot path or a natural "path" through creates a line to follow. Lines in photographs can be a powerful element.

It's late, hope that made sense

Dan

Sep 01, 2013 at 12:54 AM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Yoda's house

dswiger wrote:
Forest shots don't usually work well with just random greenery. The eye doesn't have a place to start.
That's why scenes with, say a stand of Aspen work, as there is space between the trees that often leads the eye through them, an implied line. Also with that space, there are patterns and contrasting colors.

I think the one shot that has some "dimensional" potential is #2 as the light upper left and the close/far trees help that. But without something else to break up the vegetation, and make it seem like you can see your way into the image, the view...Show more →

It definitely does, but I still like them anyway. I love seeing forest interiors no matter how messy. I know many photographers tend not to though, especially classical landscape shooters (nature lovers who are not photographers tend to much more prone to like them I've noticed, especially ones who grew up in woodsy areas without many grand vistas; on a side tangent it always boggles my mind when from time to time you'll be hiking through an amazing forest with old trees, tangled moss, mini-rock cliffs, ravines, etc. and run into someone going the other way and they will ask man this is long how much longer until we reach the end and get to see something and I am like what?? see something! look around! it's not just the overlook at the end!).

Giant trees, wild ferns and moss, it can be wonderous to see all the different parts of every forest and I don't mind that the eye is not classically focused and drawn in specific ways. Yeah at first glance or even any glance maybe it's not OMG like with some of amazing more open scapes posted here or going to be your most prize winning photo in any classic sense by any means or anything but I still enjoy them.

I'm not saying these ones are necessarily the best of even this sort or anything either (it probably didn't help that I had just a minutes here and there between nearly catastrophically intense downpours and fading light; it was a tricky area so it may be very challenging even with tons of time to compose something with even a basic flow like you mention, but even if it isn't even possible I would never skip shooting such a wondrous thing) but I still love to see all the lush ferns and birch and moss in them (again it does help a lot to see them at much bigger scale where you can actually tell the ferns are ferns and not green pixels, there is quite a difference between various greens smears all blobbed together and seeing every little front on even those tiniest of ferns distinct and the details in the scenes distinct from everything else near them) and figured people might simply be really excited just to see a place covered in so many ferns climbing up giant rock outcroppings from a nature lovers perspective. Sometimes even snap shots can be pretty interesting to look at and you can get so caught up in only seeing things for truly magical composition as to no longer enjoy anything else. To see what sorts of giant trees or outcroppings or fern paradises a place may have.

(and on a tangent note I really get disappointed when a photo book of some place that has amazing forests ends up with 99% scenic vistas of rolling hills and such and then one shot of the giant old trees, if you are luck.

fill half the book with shots showing off the giant trees in the Adirondacks for instance, yeah the vistas are amazing give me lots of those but don't miss the trees for the forest and scapes otherwise I mean you could have shot some forest that was logged flat jsut 50 years ago. Some books here and there do manage to put more scenes just showing the forest interior and I think they are pretty awesome books even if many of those photos are never classical OMG prize winners.)

Sep 01, 2013 at 02:30 AM

gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Yoda's house

“This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock.” – Edward Weston

Sep 01, 2013 at 09:57 AM

skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Yoda's house

gdanmitchell wrote:
“This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock.” – Edward Weston

Yeah this is why sometimes a little saturation or contrast boosting and such can in some ways more something feel more natural than a scientifically measured photographic sample. So much is missing in a single, static, lo res shot compared to being there in real life, sometimes be it through special composition or processing a touch more extreme than in real life (but don't go crazy either) making a rock more than a rock in a photo can make it seem more like a rock in real life.

Although I think your quote is getting a bit more towards the lighting and composition side of things than what I said above but it still has some of that in it too.

Anyway I hardly consider these to be the best shots I've posted here recently (did not even expect too much comments, if any, on the shots themselves at all, but mostly just man where is that cool place sort of comments) but again sometimes there is nothing wrong with just plain seeing cool places and forests. Nothing wrong with simply showing some places that are cool off. You can make interesting books that show off trails and places even if not one photo is set to be a compositional masterpiece, sometimes going only for those shots means you simply miss a whole lot too, some books on certain parks and forests have almost entirely forgotten to show the actual place. Documentary photography has a place too. Not that I suggest you be lazy and just randomly snap things and don't spend tons of time on classic dramatic landscape compositions, but you can't get so caught up that everything has to be workable into a photo that could potentially win a general prize sort of view either that you can't even look at anything else. (But I have encountered in a couple rare cases, some who have fallen so into the perfect eye for great shots that they were literally unable to even just enjoy, forget talking about photography, any sites around them unless they could be readily worked into classic simple dramatic type landscape shots and they always wanted to rush past the most amazing woodland scenery, stuff that others were going man this forest is awesome over.)

Sep 03, 2013 at 05:10 PM


FM Forums \| Landscape Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.