# Opinions, opinions everyone's got one



## N1kon1k (Apr 4, 2017)

camera away being repaired left me in front of my computer... trying to focus on post processing in the meantime and get to the next level... please critique and don't be shy

Looking to see what works and what doesn't...
What you all like and don't like...

Got my big boy pants on and a couple of tissues if needed


----------



## john.margetts (Apr 4, 2017)

Too much sky for me, and I would have preferred a less wide-angle lens. The dominant structure in the picture is the tree and it should dominate more.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2017)

john.margetts said:
			
		

> Too much sky for me, and I would have preferred a less wide-angle lens. The dominant structure in the picture is the tree and it should dominate more.



Yes, less wide-angle would have made the tree larger. Or, getting much,much closer to the tree--that would have helped immensely. The issue is that the tree is too far from the lens, so it makes the grass more prominent, and literally physically reduces the on-sensor size of distant objects. But as john.margetts syas, a less wide-angle look at this likely would hgave made a stronger image.

Conversely, had you decided to use the SAME lens length, I can envision a similar yet better shot, one made from a camera position much closer to the tree, and low on the hill, looking upwardly; that would have made the tree much bigger, but at the same time, would NOT have affected the amount of angle of the distant sky hardly at all.

I think John has a valid point: as-shown, there *is* a LOT of sky...and a small tree; had the tree been rendered 3 to 4 times larger, from a camera placement that had been,say 40 feet away, the tree would have been biogger, more important,more imposing, and it would have balanced out such a wide view of the sky.


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 4, 2017)

I feel like the sky although subjective adds drama to the shot by its texture and pulls the eye in towards the tree... giving it a feeling

Although now that you mention Derrell a different angle would of still created the same feel... just not sure as to how the clouds would compliment the bush... 

I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"

I just wasn't sure as to how to communicate that message... 

Any ideas as to how I could of approached it that way


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Apr 4, 2017)

Try cropping a little off the top, most of what's left of the tree, and about half the grass on the bottom; see what that   gives you.


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 4, 2017)

alexis.alvarez said:


> Try cropping a little off the top, most of what's left of the tree, and about half the grass on the bottom; see what that   gives you.


Like this


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Apr 4, 2017)

I like much better! Still dramatic, but not such an overpowering sky! Just curious -- does it work in B&W?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Apr 4, 2017)

Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 4, 2017)

jsecordphoto said:


> Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on


Not harsh at all... thank you Jsecordphoto I really appreciate all the help I can get... thanks for pointing that out... I didn't notice the halo until now ... agreed on the horizon as well...


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 4, 2017)

N1kon1k said:


> View attachment 137594
> 
> 
> alexis.alvarez said:
> ...


Here is a quick black and white just to give you an idea as to what you think... thanks for the suggestions


----------



## alexis.alvarez (Apr 4, 2017)

You might also try desaturating the sky a little. I would still crop a little more on the left. 

BTW, looking at the original photo, the horizon is not "level" because it dips, so don't see this as a problem.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2017)

N1kon1k said:
			
		

> SNIP>>>>I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"
> 
> I just wasn't sure as to how to communicate that message...
> 
> Any ideas as to how I could of approached it that way



I understand that desire! And it's a good idea, a good concept. How to approach such a thing? It's a fine line between using true perspective, which is based on camera-to-subject distance, and using apparent perspective distortion, which comes easily with extreme wide-angle lenses. There's a fine balancing act between getting the desired _perspective_, and utilizing wide-angle lenses and their ability to create _apparent perspective distortion_.

It would take me a chapter in a book to explain this. So let me give you this simplified piece of advice: perspective is controlled by how close or far the camera is from the subject. The easiest way to improve your photos is to decide on the desired perspective, and to then use different lens lengths, to see how they affect the in-camera image.

You shot this with a wide-angle lens from too far away. The tree--and everything else--looks small, and insignificant. You cannot crop this issue away, after the shot. The best idea would have been to have moved the camera closer, so we could SEE the tree, and I mean see it clearly, for what it has, the branches, the leaves, etc., and then so we could also see the sky. The issue is that you show everything SMALL, due to the extreme wide-angle lens length, and from too far away, thus compounding the smallness. We cannot appreciate the tree; _we KNOW how big a tree is_. But the photo showed the tree looking tiny, like a shrub, like a bush.

The idea of contrasting the vastness of the sky with the size of a tree fails when the tree is shot from 70 meters away and the tree is small; you needed to have gotten closer to the tree, to change the perspective of the tree, and from there, THEN used the wide-angle zoom to show the sky as the larger object.

Learning HOW to use a wide-angle lens takes time, and lessons, exercises, and an understanding of lenswork theory and practice.


----------



## john.margetts (Apr 5, 2017)

jsecordphoto said:


> Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on


The horizon is curved due to it being hills. How do you level a curve?


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

Thanks Derrel I will try to use this piece of advice on my next session... I kind of understand a bit more of what you saying... I'll keep reading on this until I get my camera back and than put it to practice


----------



## jsecordphoto (Apr 5, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on
> ...



you get it as close as possible. It looks 5-10 degrees off


----------



## pgriz (Apr 5, 2017)

I'd like to compliment Derrel on a good explanation and add the following.   One of the most useful skills to learn when using a wide-angle lens, is to get the subject of interest close to the lens so that it takes up a decent amount of the frame, and then arrange the angle of view to make a pleasing composition.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 5, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on
> ...


There are usually plenty of things in the frame that give you an idea of where the horizon is - and they are the vertical elements (trees, fence posts, flag poles, etc.) that form another point of frame alignment.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 5, 2017)

N1kon1k said:


> I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"



I think I understand what you were trying to accomplish. In the case of strong elements in the composition, they either have to be the focal point or not, they can't compete with each other. Had the big tree NOT been there, the small tree in the background combined with the "in focus" grass/weeds on the right would have created a strong sense of depth, but not competed with the sky. At that point a little work on the central white area, and the light streaks in the sky would have made it the focal point.


----------



## Designer (Apr 5, 2017)

N1kon1k said:


> I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"


Successful, IMO.  I like the original version.


----------



## john.margetts (Apr 5, 2017)

jsecordphoto said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > jsecordphoto said:
> ...


How can you possibly tell? The hill gradient could be anything and the tree is unlikely to be vertical.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 5, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Yes, less wide-angle would have made the tree larger.



Having bad weather here, and didn't get to finish previous post.

Derrel is usually point on, and is here, with the exception that a wide angle lens (wider the better) can be used to enhance perspective (if that is your intent), but it needs to be shot linear (going away from you) not coming in from either side. Had you shot low from the top of the ridge on the right, toward the tree or down low from in front of the tree I think your perspective would have been improved. Leading lines can be anywhere in the lie of the landscape or the streaks in the sky. Move around a lot, even if you think you have the perfect shot.


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> N1kon1k said:
> 
> 
> > I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"
> ...



Yes you definely understand what I was trying to accomplish, what I'm still having a hard time understanding is as to why you can't have to strong elements in a shot competing.... My initial idea (although not successful) was to create a conflict between the 2 subjects (tree vs. cloud) to keep the eye going back and forward... But I think to show that a bit more i should of created more depth/dynamic range between the subjects?

I'm not trying to dispute or argue my side...(clearly the shot can be stronger from what everyone is stating) and i appreciate all the input, Just trying to understand where I can improve to create a stronger impact with a shot...


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> jsecordphoto said:
> 
> 
> > john.margetts said:
> ...



I think you're both right in your own way... what Jsecordphoto is trying to say and I agree with him is that the left portion of the picture shows the horizon line dipping down to the right....I looked back at the photo and yes he is right....

I think what you John.Margetts is saying... Is that because the shot was taken on a hill? i obviously had to straighten the shot a bit more than usual to give a straighter look to the shot... perhaps if that portion of the horizon wasn't in the shot? it wouldn't of been as noticeable that the shot was rearranged ...


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 5, 2017)

N1kon1k said:


> what I'm still having a hard time understanding is as to why you can't have to strong elements in a shot competing.... My initial idea (although not successful) was to create a conflict between the 2 subjects (tree vs. cloud) to keep the eye going back and forward..



There's been a lot of water under this old bridge since art in college, but there's a thing called "Balance" in art. It refers to the sense of how we perceive visual weights that offset one another, IE- your tree and the sky. Additionally, elements should be arranged to have either symmetrical balance (equal on each side), or asymmetrically (different but arranged in a way they feel balanced). The rule of thirds, Fibonacci's ratio, etc., seek to guide you towards that end.

When you have two strong elements with a weight difference in the two, it allows the eye to be drawn to the stronger of the elements and find a resting place. Assuming other things like color harmony, contrast, arrangement of the elements, etc.,  are in alignment, then the  composition seems to be  "in balance"  making the viewer feel more comfortable, hence a more pleasing image and one which the viewer lingers on.  Imbalance causes an unsettled feeling, the viewer isn't likely to view the image for very long, nor will they like it. 

As the artist, it is your choice to determine the direction you want your image to take. However before you seek to break the rules, you should probably study  them in more detail, so that you have an understanding of how your viewer will perceive your image.  There are those artists out there that deliberately create imbalance to disturb the viewer.  Some may like it, but myself  I don't care for it, and generally move away from it quickly. Course that may be the OCD side of me kicking in


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> N1kon1k said:
> 
> 
> > what I'm still having a hard time understanding is as to why you can't have to strong elements in a shot competing.... My initial idea (although not successful) was to create a conflict between the 2 subjects (tree vs. cloud) to keep the eye going back and forward..
> ...



Lol well done sir ... thank you for taking the time to explain it furthermore... Derrel once told me to work on composition and balance and I have been trying to understand it... although photography is a bit subjective on how the viewer perceives it.... one thing you can't shy away from is a keen eye that knows if the shot works? Or doesn't? Hence the reason why I always post my shots... I need to know what works and what doesn't... this shot apparently failed in composition and also balance.... which seems to be a pattern I'm under... balance is a bit tough... 

Any guidance on balance that you can suggest for me to study? Books, videos, photos, photographers?

Any will do


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2017)

HERE is a book I looked at at the library not that long ago. Very good, and has some excellent illustrations showing how visual balance and harmony can be arrived. There's one specific scene, of a farmer working in a rice field, and the scene is shot with multiple different uses of framing and composition. It's a very good example showing how differrent framings affect the sensro of balance. Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books

The book has a LOT of helpful tips and examinations of digitial photography composition, with the idea that the digitial photo will in many cases, be adjusted and often times will be significantly altered after the capture stage; this is very different from the old film-era idea of compose-to-the-very-edges-and-do-not-ever-crop. I think this book would help ANY beginning or intermediate photographer. Freeman is  a very capable writer and teacher, and has been around for a long time.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 5, 2017)

I found a suggestion by Derrel and JC on books by John Hedgecoe, to be great resources on a number of things.  I have this one, really good the art of digital photography, john hedgecoe - Google Search or The Book of Photography by John Hedgecoe ... Great How-To Book | eBay

This one is dated, but a lot of the same principals still apply the complete photography course, by john hedgecoe - Google Search

And lastly this one: how to take great photographs, joh hedgecoes - Google Search 

He seems to explain things in a simple manner.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 5, 2017)

@Derrel I could swear I've read this by Freman, but I can't remember for sure. Guess I'll have to go get it. Nice thing about short term memory loss is that everything is new again!!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 5, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @Derrel I could swear I've read this by Freman, but I can't remember for sure. Guess I'll have to go get it. Nice thing about short term memory loss is that everything is new again!!



I believe this is the "for digital photographers" re-jiggering of the same basic idea from his earlier book of a similar title, but as he mentions specifically, digital images are often shot and will be re-worked, composited, or cropped, etc.. The Photographer's Eye was incorporated in his earlier book's title, but this one is definitely new, and is different.

And yes, I've been recommending John Hedgecoe'smany books for a long time here on TPF; the suggestions you give above would be solid books for anybody wanting to better learn some photography fundamentals,tips,strategies, and concepts.


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

Derrel said:


> HERE is a book I looked at at the library not that long ago. Very good, and has some excellent illustrations showing how visual balance and harmony can be arrived. There's one specific scene, of a farmer working in a rice field, and the scene is shot with multiple different uses of framing and composition. It's a very good example showing how differrent framings affect the sensro of balance. Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books
> 
> The book has a LOT of helpful tips and examinations of digitial photography composition, with the idea that the digitial photo will in many cases, be adjusted and often times will be significantly altered after the capture stage; this is very different from the old film-era idea of compose-to-the-very-edges-and-do-not-ever-crop. I think this book would help ANY beginning or intermediate photographer. Freeman is  a very capable writer and teacher, and has been around for a long time.


Just bought it... should have it in a week or so
Thanks a bunch

Really starting to think that posting bad photos are better than posting good ones... you can only grow from bad ones and get conceited by good ones


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I found a suggestion by Derrel and JC on books by John Hedgecoe, to be great resources on a number of things.  I have this one, really good the art of digital photography, john hedgecoe - Google Search or The Book of Photography by John Hedgecoe ... Great How-To Book | eBay
> 
> This one is dated, but a lot of the same principals still apply the complete photography course, by john hedgecoe - Google Search
> 
> ...


I do have one of his books already and it's very informative.. I will be looking on eBay for more of his stuff... thanks a bunch


----------



## N1kon1k (Apr 5, 2017)

Just picked up the art of photography for $4 shipped woo hoo


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 5, 2017)

Sounds like you're on a roll. Hedgecoe covers color harmony a little, but while your waiting for them to come in you might do a little Internet reading on the subject. Here's one link Color Relationships: Creating Color Harmony - Sensational Color 

There are three primary colors red, blue and yellow. Secondary colors are mixed from these three. In addition to knowing how colors relate to create harmony you also need to remember that primary colors advance and secondary recede. If you put a primary like the blue sky in your image background it's going to advance an overpower your foreground decreasing depth. Likewise to make the background recede you need to use a primary in the front and secondary in the rear


----------

