Opinions Wanted

[toosuto]

I've taken quite a few landscape shots since I've been in Scotland but more often than not I've ended up deleting them (or best just burying them in iPhoto and never looking again). Behind the cut are three shots from Castle Edinburgh and if you have an opinion on what works and what doesn't I'd like to hear it because I just don't seem to have a handle on it.

A word of warning I may have edited and reloaded the photos based on previous feedback, just in case a any of the feedback below seems strange or just wrong. Also concrete answers, of course, are much better than general comments (i.e. "the crane in the second picture breaks up the flow of the photo from point a to point b" rather than "the crane gives me hives").

Comments

landscape photos

[(Anonymous)]

Of the three I'm drawn to the one at the bottom. The first two appear to me to be too busy in composition. The last one, however, presents to the eye an interesting juxtopositioning of nature and its inclusion, (or exclusion) of urban sprawl. I'm also taken with the fact that I can recognize Walter Scott's tower on the right and the Firth of Fourth on the horizon. Overall, a great picture. Aunt Jan

Re: landscape photos

[toosuto.livejournal.com]

Maybe that's part of my problem, how does one compose a photo of stuff from far away and avoid the busy problem?

[dr-tectonic.livejournal.com]

I think what they need is a bit more Rule of Thirds.

So in the first picture, crop of a little bit of the sky to nudge the horizon upward, and then on the left to lose the black tower that's crowding the edge -- probably just to the left of the white dome (up top) and the portico (down below) so you don't cut them in half. Then the big hill would dominate the left two-thirds of the image with the orange building balancing it on the right.

You could also crop it more severely so it was just big gray building, hill, and bridge-thingy, leaving out the orange buildings and the road, but it'd be hard. That'd probably work better if you moved a couple hundred feet to your left before taking the picture...

The second picture is really hard. I think it's mostly working left-to-right, but you've got the horizon right in the middle. Problem being that there are two horizon lines: land/sky and light-sky/dark-clouds, and you can't shift them far enough without either losing the top of the steeple or cutting off all the buildings. I think what it really wants is an extra 40-50% along the bottom, and then you could work with it.

Actually, there is one really radical thing you can do with it: crop it so that there's just the steeple on the right, the crane on the left, and a little bit of mountain along the bottom edge. The cloud line drops down to about the 1/3 mark and the little scruff of tree and mountain adds some interest. It's very minimalist, but kinda neat.

The third picture is mostly working; the compositional balance is nice, the angles are interesting, and the contrast in colors is appealing. I think you want to take a little slice off the left (or add on a little on the right) and a little slice off the bottom to balance it just a little, and then you'll have this nice layer of white, layer of gray/brown, and layer of green. The only other problem is that the white at the top tends to bleed off into the page. You can fix that by putting a border around it. Try it. I think it needs to be colored, not just black, so try a dark gray or brown color.

So I guess my summing-up thought is that if you're not doing it all in-camera, take your picture too big so you have margins to work with when you're adjusting the composition afterwards.

[k8cre8.livejournal.com]

I sorta like the top one, less as a photo, but, as sorta a historical/memory record. It *is* packed, but, it's also got sharp, clear images of all the buildings. One of the things I realized from my photos of Germany was that I liked have at least a few of those in the mix, since they bring back so much memory-wise.

The middle one has a composition along the diagonal, but, that's the only thing I could find that "unified" it. The obvious thing drawing the focus is the tower, which, is obscured by the trees, which a sorta "speed bump" of the crane. As you scan it, your eyes are pulled to the tower, it hits the crane, and it's like, "that's not what the composition's prepping me for, I *know* there's something big lurking in the edge of this photo!" and then, you hit the tower, and it's sorta an anti-climax.

The bottom one I think, is the best of the lot, It has a nice composition on the diagonal as well, which is partially from the lines of the roads and traffic paths. There's also the strong lines of the two prominant buildings going along the other diagonal. I was noticing, it was well balanced almost anyway you divide it.

[bryree.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the crane in the second picture (to me) is what damages it the most. That wonderful diagonal pull from tower to tower is broken, but not broken hard enough for it to be a ZOMG-there-is-modern-stuff-how-juxtapose-y/commentary-y....y. I would love to see a retake w/o the crane. I'm sure you could get the weather and everything else to co-operate...:)

The third is quite nice.

The first...what I finally figured was that my eye wanted most of the bottom gone - really about the bottom third as it is posted. The line extended from just below the bottom of the tower on the left across the middle building (eliminating most to all of the darker path/road beneath it leaving just the lighter top of it)to just below the line dividing the light/dark areas of the house on the far right. It makes the pic very long-and-skinny, but that is how I liked it best.