Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Landscape Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2006, 7:59 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Well, the idea when I took the picture was notuse the observatory as the focal point of the subject but to show Mount Hamilton covered with snow, which is a rare scene. Just about every year we get a storm or two that drops snow at the highest elevations. Since Mt. Hamilton is one of the highest mountains around, it's one of the few that get enough snow for us to see. That's the reason why I could not not move the camera much to the left or right...there would not be any snow had I done that.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 3:25 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
HOKIEGIRL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 218
Default

Tullio, I did not even notice the observatory at th top. I was quite impressed with the composition of the picture. I like the change in colors and it had great depth of field...
HOKIEGIRL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 3:54 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 171
Default

The lighting is non-discript and boring.

The sky is blank so I would crop a lot of it or include more ground (depending on what is there). I think more of the tree might have been interesting.

I like the three hills/mountains perspective.

Africa
Attached Images
 
Africa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2006, 9:48 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Thanks, HOKIEGIRL. I like the colors as well and I think the reddish tree at the bottom right corner adds a lot to it.

Africa, I try not no use PP unless the picture is one of a kind and looks really bad without (I don't believe that was the case here). By making the sky more vibrant, you alsochanged the hueofthe hills (2nd layer),turning it bluish and darker, which is certainly not accurate at all. I alsothink thattight cropping canbe very efficient at times but not always.In this case, I think itreduce the impact, the grandiosity of the composition. That's my opinion, of course.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 6:18 AM   #15
Member
 
yame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 57
Default

That would be a nice veiw looking out from a window. But keep the snow :-)
yame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2006, 9:54 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
RedRhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 220
Default

I have changed my own opinion concerning the use of PS. For film, the manipulation of the image starts with the film choice. Canon for example is trying to revive that with the creation of "picture styles" that is available in the 30D, 5D and up. Even if the negative is sent to Walmart for processing, automatic colour correct occurs but good/great photographers often consider the work performed in the darkroom as critical as the capture of image to the negative. Many will have desitinct choices for chemicals, paper, process and equipment to achieve the effects, colours, and tones they desire.

To quote Ansel Adams,
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."

The presentation of the piece is the artist's choice. I hope you don't limit yourself and your art because you feel its cheating. That being said, the art comes back into it in the decisions you make in the digital darkroom.
RedRhino is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:14 PM.