# Dull Sunsets Lead to Dull Photos... Do you agree?



## D-B-J (Apr 29, 2014)

What&#x27;s Hidden Underneath by f_one_eight, on Flickr


Cheers!
Jake


----------



## PropilotBW (Apr 29, 2014)

I think it's a very nice photo.  But I can sort of agree with your statement if you're prying for an opinion.  You have noticed something isn't interesting about your photo.   when I look at the sky, it lacks a little interest.  I then search around your photo for something more interesting than the sky and the few rocks in the foreground, and I just can't find the interest.  
So, maybe if the sky lacks interest, there has to be a better land subject in the composition than the few rocks in the foreground and the sparse trees across the pond...then the sky won't matter what color it is.  

A dull scene leads to a dull photo.  A dull sunset has nothing to do with it.  Your technique is very nice, though.


----------



## BillM (Apr 29, 2014)

Agreed, not that you have that issue here. Nice shot :thumbup:


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 29, 2014)

PropilotBW said:


> I think it's a very nice photo.  But I can sort of agree with your statement if you're prying for an opinion.  You have noticed something isn't interesting about your photo.   when I look at the sky, it lacks a little interest.  I then search around your photo for something more interesting than the sky and the few rocks in the foreground, and I just can't find the interest.
> So, maybe if the sky lacks interest, there has to be a better land subject in the composition than the few rocks in the foreground and the sparse trees across the pond...then the sky won't matter what color it is.
> 
> A dull scene leads to a dull photo.  A dull sunset has nothing to do with it.  Your technique is very nice, though.



Thanks, your sentiments sum up my thoughts exactly. The scene didn't seem to have much in terms of interesting subjects. Nothing good in the foreground, and the same went for the sky. I just posted it for S's and G's.

Cheers!
Jake 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 30, 2014)

Any more thoughts?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 30, 2014)

I wonder if with an instantaneous exposure, if it might have been possible to  aim the camera from a lower vantage point and a slight angle, and to show the rocks larger and make them more prominent, and show the sunset as a reflection in the water's surface?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 30, 2014)

I'd think about the framing. The sky seems to have less pattern or contrast to balance all that great pattern and texture in the rocks in the foreground. 

There's some pattern in the clouds just above the shoreline to the right. Without the top portion of the photo it could bring the viewer's attention in better, more to that bit of cloud pattern that might better balance the bottom of the photo. (So basically I'd make copies and try some crops; usually I don't crop much or often but sometimes if lopping off a portion of a photo works better, that's what I'll do.) 

Sometimes if I don't like what I see in front of me for a photo, I move around til I see it (whatever it might be); I might try horizontal or vertical instead or change my vantage point or frame it differently. Or move on til I see what works.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 30, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I wonder if with an instantaneous exposure, if it might have been possible to  aim the camera from a lower vantage point and a slight angle, and to show the rocks larger and make them more prominent, and show the sunset as a reflection in the water's surface?



Sadly it was breezy, so that would have been un-achievable with all the little ripples on the water. A good thought for a future shoot if the water is calm, though.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 30, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> I'd think about the framing. The sky seems to have less pattern or contrast to balance all that great pattern and texture in the rocks in the foreground.
> 
> There's some pattern in the clouds just above the shoreline to the right. Without the top portion of the photo it could bring the viewer's attention in better, more to that bit of cloud pattern that might better balance the bottom of the photo. (So basically I'd make copies and try some crops; usually I don't crop much or often but sometimes if lopping off a portion of a photo works better, that's what I'll do.)
> 
> ...



I really didn't find anything that caught my eye.  I couldn't seem to make it "work."

Cheers!
Jake


----------



## Derrel (Apr 30, 2014)

D-B-J said:
			
		

> I really didn't find anything that caught my eye.  I couldn't seem to make it "work."



Another argument in favor of shooting sheet film where you're looking at a $3.00 sheet of film and $5.00 per sheet in processing. Sometimes the best solution is simply not to take the shot. But with digital, there's so little penalty financially, that that seems almost incomprehensible.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 30, 2014)

Derrel said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's very true. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CdTSnap (Apr 30, 2014)

I like it, awesome photo


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 30, 2014)

CdTSnap said:


> I like it, awesome photo



Well thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (Apr 30, 2014)

All sunset photos are dull in my book.


----------



## Rags (Apr 30, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > I'd think about the framing. The sky seems to have less pattern or contrast to balance all that great pattern and texture in the rocks in the foreground.
> ...



Well just for giggles....

This is a sky shot...  a sunset needs the orb ... 

At least that's my humble definition...

and I like to shoot sunsets, sunrises, moonsets and moon rises

Rags


----------



## CdTSnap (Apr 30, 2014)

Youd be using a polarizing filter eh?


----------



## D-B-J (May 1, 2014)

[QUO TE=CdTSnap;3220729]Youd be using a polarizing filter eh?[/QUOTE]

I did not use a polarizer. I believe I used a 0.9, 0.6, and 0.3 soft graduated neutral density.

Cheers!
Jake



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 1, 2014)

Great Photo as slight tweak of the saturation and it would be perfect.

John.


----------



## D-B-J (May 1, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Great Photo as slight tweak of the saturation and it would be perfect.
> 
> John.



More or less?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 1, 2014)

More saturation, just a little bit in my opinion though i dont have a calibrated monitor. :thumbup:

John.


----------



## D-B-J (May 1, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> More saturation, just a little bit in my opinion though i dont have a calibrated monitor. :thumbup:
> 
> John.



Gotcha. :thumbup:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slackercruster (May 1, 2014)

Dull anything leads to dull photos


----------



## D-B-J (May 1, 2014)

slackercruster said:


> Dull anything leads to dull photos



Touche.


----------



## manaheim (May 1, 2014)

slackercruster said:


> Dull anything leads to dull photos



 Well that cut right to the bone of the matter.


----------



## D-B-J (May 1, 2014)

manaheim said:


> slackercruster said:
> 
> 
> > Dull anything leads to dull photos
> ...



The truth hurts, they say.  Thankfully, I agree :mrgreen:


----------



## wickie44 (May 5, 2014)

I like it, it screams serenity 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## D-B-J (May 5, 2014)

wickie44 said:


> I like it, it screams serenity
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Thank you! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## manaheim (May 5, 2014)

Screaming serenity...


----------



## D-B-J (May 5, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Screaming serenity...



Lemme guess.. the irony of it???


----------



## manaheim (May 5, 2014)

Something like that.


----------



## D-B-J (May 5, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Something like that.



Seems legit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Nounboy (May 5, 2014)

It's a fine shot.  I don't know why every landscape has to be "spectacular".


----------



## D-B-J (May 5, 2014)

Nounboy said:


> It's a fine shot.  I don't know why every landscape has to be "spectacular".



Intense self-scrutiny and exaggerated expectations.  For me, at least.


----------



## weepete (May 7, 2014)

That's one way to look at it. Personally the thing that I like most about this photo is the colour pallette which has some really nice purples, blues and steel colours with nice transitions in between. I really like the angle you've gotten with the water covered stones and it suits this picture that the landscape doesn't intrude to much and isn't in your face. It lets me appreciate the colours more.


----------



## D-B-J (May 7, 2014)

weepete said:


> That's one way to look at it. Personally the thing that I like most about this photo is the colour pallette which has some really nice purples, blues and steel colours with nice transitions in between. I really like the angle you've gotten with the water covered stones and it suits this picture that the landscape doesn't intrude to much and isn't in your face. It lets me appreciate the colours more.



I agree- the colors are really nice in this photo. I think that's why I like it. 

Cheers!
Jake 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

