# Church at sunset - c&c please



## SquarePeg (Jul 20, 2016)

Looking for feedback on crop/framing and processing and suggestions on what to do differently next time.  This view is of the church on our street from a local lookout point so I can go back and reshoot pretty much any time.  You could just tell the other day after the rain that the sky was going to be gorgeous at sunset so I quickly grabbed my camera and ran over there.  Only had the 17-70 with me.  Next time will bring an assortment including 11-16 and 70-300.
1.



Melrose_2959_edited-1 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

2.



Melrose_2969_edited-1 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

3.



Melrose_2970_edited-1 by SharonCat..., on Flickr


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 20, 2016)

The beautiful capture of the colors in the sky might be both the good and bad in these. It's  so big and bold compared to other elements in the shots.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 20, 2016)

What's the subject? The church? The sky? You should always have a subject and the composition should lead they eye to the subject.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 20, 2016)

smoke665 said:


> The beautiful capture of the colors in the sky might be both the good and bad in these. It's  so big and bold compared to other elements in the shots.


Yes the sky was so gorgeous.  I wish there was more of the church showing as it would make it more interesting.  



HughGuessWho said:


> What's the subject? The church? The sky? You should always have a subject and the composition should lead they eye to the subject.



I think you've put your finger on exactly what is bothering me about these.  Any suggestions?  At this time of year with all the trees, the church steeple is really the only thing visible from the lookout.  I can go back another night with my 70-300 and try to get something that focuses more on the church but what I was really wanting to capture was the beautiful sky.  And a photo of just sky is just too without context I think.


----------



## JonA_CT (Jul 20, 2016)

Wider might help, depending what else is visible...I love the colors though.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 20, 2016)

JonA_CT said:


> Wider might help, depending what else is visible...I love the colors though.



Just more trees and sky.  The church is the only thing tall enough to be visible.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 20, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> > Wider might help, depending what else is visible...I love the colors though.
> ...



But the church is not tall in the images, it is quite tiny. The problem I find is that there is no connection between the foreground and the sky, the processing has made the palette of colour and contrast different and it has become 'disconnected'.

The reason, I think, is because the limits of the camera don't allow you to bring the two elements together so they fit together convincingly.

Composition does not have to lead your eye to a central subject that says, "this is what I took a photograph of." You can take a photograph of the whole, in which case it only needs to balance and look complete.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 20, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > JonA_CT said:
> ...



Thanks for your feedback, much appreciated.


----------



## katsrevenge (Jul 20, 2016)

OK, I'm a sucker for this one stretch of river near me that makes for great sunsets, so I know the appeal of a spot like that!  
I love those colors, and the stacking of the clouds.

I'd go wider, if I could. The sky is the focus, right? And if the church is the only non-tree thing.... I'd put it off to the side. I've found this guy's videos helpful, when it comes to making my stuff look 'better'.  (...at least I hope it's better, LOL)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ6FIlZVNbQP-QQVdGAkp5VLs1f9x4bd7


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 21, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > JonA_CT said:
> ...



I completely disagree, as would most landscape photographers.

Before you bring the camera to your eye, you should know what your "subject" is and what you are attempting to capture. Them, you must work the shot until you get the composition you are looking for. Without this, your picture will be nothing but a snapshot.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 21, 2016)

HughGuessWho said:


> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> > Composition does not have to lead your eye to a central subject that says, "this is what I took a photograph of." You can take a photograph of the whole, in which case it only needs to balance and look complete.


[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree, as would most landscape photographers.

Before you bring the camera to your eye, you should know what your "subject" is and what you are attempting to capture. Them, you must work the shot until you get the composition you are looking for. Without this, your picture will be nothing but a snapshot.[/QUOTE]

I doubt it.  Your's is certainly one approach and I'm by no means saying that it's wrong. Before we go any further your original statement to which I was referring was:



HughGuessWho said:


> What's the subject? The church? The sky? You should always have a subject and the composition should lead they eye to the subject.



Why must the subject be a 'thing' that's contained within the frame, and why must composition 'lead the eye'? The trouble is that if you start with a fixed definition of what you think a landscape should be, and how you think it should work, then what you're really doing when you raise the camera to your eye is trying to make it conform to that definition. This is always the danger, that if you start with a fixed view and try to apply that fixed logic to every image, then you effectively become blind to anything outside it.

But why can't the landscape be the entire frame? Consider your subject as peace, tranquility and calm. Would that not stretch from border to border in your image, and then couldn't composition just be the use of colours and balance rather than leading your eye anywhere?

You could also start by asking what it is about the scene that appeals to you, then why it appeals to you, rather than a bias towards what is the subject and how can I make it fit within my understanding of landscape. It can be as simple as a combination of colours or shapes, so how do you lead the eye to a combination of colours? You don't, you balance them within the frame and they become the subject. It's the same with repeated motifs or shapes, percussive rhythms and other devices that are common in landscape photography.

Landscapes don't even need a subject. They can be just a simple balance of shape form and colour, the picture can be the whole. I personally like to explore the 2D nature of photographs and often try and reduce them to the simplest of forms so they become just the interplay between elements. It's just a different approach which is just as valid as yours:

Beach, Low Tide, South Uist


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 21, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > Tim Tucker said:
> ...



I completely disagree, as would most landscape photographers.

Before you bring the camera to your eye, you should know what your "subject" is and what you are attempting to capture. Them, you must work the shot until you get the composition you are looking for. Without this, your picture will be nothing but a snapshot.[/QUOTE]

I doubt it.  Your's is certainly one approach and I'm by no means saying that it's wrong. Before we go any further your original statement to which I was referring was:



HughGuessWho said:


> What's the subject? The church? The sky? You should always have a subject and the composition should lead they eye to the subject.



Why must the subject be a 'thing' that's contained within the frame, and why must composition 'lead the eye'? [/QUOTE]

Where exactly did I say it had to be "a thing"? I said you need a "subject". That could be a "thing", or it could be the sky, a shadow, a repeating pattern... 
I stand by my statement. A picture taken with out thought and without a clear "subject", is but a snapshot. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the vast majority successful landscape photographers as well. It's composition 101.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Jul 21, 2016)

HughGuessWho said:


> Where exactly did I say it had to be "a thing"? I said you need a "subject". That could be a "thing", or it could be the sky, a shadow, a repeating pattern...
> I stand by my statement. A picture taken with out thought and without a clear "subject", is but a snapshot. If you disagree, you are disagreeing with the vast majority successful landscape photographers as well. It's composition 101.



Apologies @SquarePeg I didn't mean for your thread to be hijacked.

@HughGuessWho - I didn't disagree with you, I said your's was a valid approach. Just that it's not the only approach.

You do seem, though, to be enforcing your definition of what constitutes a landscape photo and what defines a snapshot as being the correct view, and one supported by all landscape photographers, who I'm not sure you can speak for.

The biggest problem is that your definition does not stand up to scrutiny. I've seen very engaging images that were shot with little thought or attention, and landscapes that have a lot of thought and a clear subject that are little more than snapshots. Which is all that I was saying, what makes a good landscape is not how you think it should be defined or labeled but how your audience does. The only difference between a snapshot and an engaging image is an audience (Composition 1001 ).


----------



## sw_ (Jul 21, 2016)

Any way you could get close and low to the church and still include the church, or church steeple in the frame with the sky being the background mostly free from trees? I think the steeple isolated against that beautiful sky would make quite a subject, with the steeple giving the eye a resting point.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 21, 2016)

sw_ said:


> Any way you could get close and low to the church and still include the church, or church steeple in the frame with the sky being the background mostly free from trees? I think the steeple isolated against that beautiful sky would make quite a subject, with the steeple giving the eye a resting point.



I'll have to take a look to be sure but I don't think so.  Maybe from the church parking lot...  thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## sw_ (Jul 21, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> sw_ said:
> 
> 
> > Any way you could get close and low to the church and still include the church, or church steeple in the frame with the sky being the background mostly free from trees? I think the steeple isolated against that beautiful sky would make quite a subject, with the steeple giving the eye a resting point.
> ...


No problem. Just thought it might be an option. Sometimes I wish I had a shovel to dig down about 3 feet to get the angle I want lol. 

Good luck


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2016)

Personally, I like the photos.  I know the church is a small part of the image, and the sky colors is the main attraction.  But the church add a bit to make it more than just a "colored sky image".

But the only item I would point out is the "white" of the church.  #1 looks good, but the other ones the white church is not so white.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jul 25, 2016)

Thanks. I did try to fix the wb but when I did it totally changed the color of the sky. The first shot with the adjusted wb and the white church doesn't accurately reflect the sky colors that I saw that night. The other 2 do.  I wasn't sure how to fix it correctly.


----------



## snowbear (Jul 25, 2016)

I really like the first and the third.  I do wish the church has a little more of the fram in the last one, but it's only a minor thing.



SquarePeg said:


> Thanks. I did try to fix the wb but when I did it totally changed the color of the sky. The first shot with the adjusted wb and the white church doesn't accurately reflect the sky colors that I saw that night. The other 2 do.  I wasn't sure how to fix it correctly.


You could try a (selective) correction layer in PS, using a mask.


----------

