Landscapes

wud

Senior Member
Maybe I am finally getting how to photograph landscaping here? I am pretty satisfied with these. For now ;)

The first 2 are from summertime

solnedgang_kalvebod_2315_web.jpg


solnedgang_kalvebod_2359_web.jpg




And this is from monday. Weather were so nice and foggy-ish.

landskab_maybe_2502_web.jpg




Whats your opinion?



 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Wow.. They are amazing..
BUT!!! Rule of thirds wud!!!! :)
Suggestions if i may - you can crop off the top off of all the pics.. there isn't any interesting subject like clouds or mountains & that would give a more 'wholesome eerie' feel, which am guessing was your portrayal of the scene.
Second, i think you can up the shadows a wee bit so some more detail can be seen.. not much as that would possibly take something away from the image.. specially the first one
 

wud

Senior Member
Wow.. They are amazing..
BUT!!! Rule of thirds wud!!!! :)
Suggestions if i may - you can crop off the top off of all the pics.. there isn't any interesting subject like clouds or mountains & that would give a more 'wholesome eerie' feel, which am guessing was your portrayal of the scene.
Second, i think you can up the shadows a wee bit so some more detail can be seen.. not much as that would possibly take something away from the image.. specially the first one


I did try different croppings, but didn't think it fitted the images! I wanna show, somehow, how it looks here when there are no clouds, no hills, no nothing (more or less). Open and empty space? Maybe Im not capturing it properly yet.

Shadows, thanks, I will give it a go. They are pretty much straight out of the camera, only converted to b/w and a tiny, tiny bit of contrast.
Oh. And spot removing. Forgot how bad it was at summertime >.<
 

Deezey

Senior Member
I really like that last shot! The image really captures my imagination. It almost looks like the darkness you have from the trees is trying to claw its way into the greyness of the fog. Gives it a very lonely feel for me.
 

wud

Senior Member
I really like that last shot! The image really captures my imagination. It almost looks like the darkness you have from the trees is trying to claw its way into the greyness of the fog. Gives it a very lonely feel for me.

I like it too, for some reason. Soooo simple, but yet.. something.


Been looking some more, and actually dont really like the second myself. Had a brigther version of it, but not sure.. Maybe it just doesnt have what it takes ;)

solnedgang_kalvebod_2356_web.jpg



Edit - now I see the problem. The "hill" shouldn't go to the middle of the image, it should only have been out in the side.
 
Last edited:

Deezey

Senior Member
I think its all the negative space. Most photos convey a feeling or point the photographer is trying to get across. Your photo on the other hand is almost like a blank canvas allowing me to fill in the photo how I see fit. It doesn't lead me in any certain way and I think that's what draws me to it more than the others.

If that makes sense......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
 

wud

Senior Member
I think its all the negative space. Most photos convey a feeling or point the photographer is trying to get across. Your photo on the other hand is almost like a blank canvas allowing me to fill in the photo how I see fit. It doesn't lead me in any certain way and I think that's what draws me to it more than the others.

If that makes sense......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

:cheerful:
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I'm going to have to disagree with all the noise about the "rule", now seemingly "law", of thirds. The idea that landscapes should be divided by thirds began with the classical renaissance painters and at that time was considered more aesthetically pleasing. But is it really more pleasing?? Maybe now after so many years of humans seeing landscape images in 3rds, it's hard to say whether or not such an arrangement is truly aesthetically pleasing or maybe we've just grown used to seeing them with this pattern and have confused familiarity with beauty.

The rule of 3rd's can turn an amazing shot into an "okay" shot. Take for instance image #1. Had wud faithfully obeyed this rule, we would have lost the wonderful symmetry playing between the sky and the land. And we would miss the significance of the river dividing the land once more, all mirrored by a triangular reflection in the water of the sky and riverbank. There is an innate beauty in symmetry and flushing it out in a photograph is the mark of a good photographer.

As for the "rule/law" of thirds, it's really there to give beginners a guide to follow as they're learning the art. It provides a simple way to frame a subject in order to achieve that classical landscape portraiture. But the is so much more going on in a good image. Look beyond the simple 3rd's and you'll find symmetry operators and repetitive shapes and angles along with contrasting themes and intensities that are found in any great photo. And while dicing up a photo into 3rd's is certainly not a bad thing, any skilled photographer should pay more attention to what is contained in an image rather than trying to squeeze this work into some arbitrary template developed over 400 yrs ago. Moreover, given the fact a photograph has only a small little space to tell its story, to limit that space even further with a silly "rule" does both the photographer and the viewer a disservice.

These 3 photos the OP posted are in my personal order of favorites. Love the first image while the second image is a good start and the third image isn't.
 

Flugelbinder

Senior Member
Totally agree with the order of the images. As for your insight about the rule of thirds, I have to say: Great!!! I´ve always found it to be so strict and art is all but strict... That said, I´ve done lots of research and you are the first to put it aside. Again, great, but it is one opinion... In fact, this photo can be the exception that makes the "rule of thirds" so special. In 100 images, how many times will yourself not follow that path?
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I'm with Dave. Rules are made to be followed, and rules are made to be broken. The RoT, for me at least, is a set of guidelines that help reign in shots that otherwise just seem to lack natural organization. Some are so driven by it that the lack of adherence leads to confusion and wondering what's "wrong" with the image. I love a little rebel photography and non-conformity. :)
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
As all rules, they are there to learn from and evolve from. If we lived our lives 100% by the rules most photos would never have been created. Rules are there for a reason, but it doesn't mean that times change and people see photos differently. We used to watch TV long ways horizontal, but how many videos are we seeing upload vertical to suit their phone. In no time we will have a shifting trend I think.
All I now is what looks right for me. And if I am to produce images that others like then I need to go with the changes, and it seems that if we bend or break the rules we come along those changes alot quicker.
 

Flugelbinder

Senior Member
But again, I am not a photographer. I just love a beautiful image. There´s this Australian bloke (Mr. Jerry Ghionis) who´s photos are amongst the most amazing I have seen and he does have some, whereby he breaks the rule of thirds... Does that mean we all should do it? Maybe... Sometimes... Does that mean he always does it? Not by 2% I imagine, but one of those images he considers to be his best...
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
But again, I am not a photographer. I just love a beautiful image. There´s this Australian bloke (Mr. Jerry Ghionis) who´s photos are amongst the most amazing I have seen and he does have some, whereby he breaks the rule of thirds... Does that mean we all should do it? Maybe... Sometimes... Does that mean he always does it? Not by 2% I imagine, but one of those images he considers to be his best...
Isn't he a wedding photographer?
 
Top