Originally posted by dlh I will preface my remarks with the disclaimer that what I have to say is purely a matter of individual taste, and I do not mean to criticize the composition, merely to point out some personal preferences I found running through my brain when I looked at that picture.
Thank you very much for the feedback, another viewpoint is greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by dlh The best part of it, by my lights, is the mountain in the center
Yes, that's right. The vertical shot could stand on its own. A vertical 4:3 or 5:4 exposure of the center with a bit more of the foreground included in the frame would retain the essential and accentuate the perspective. Maybe I'll go again to that place mid October (fall colors) would be ideal.
Originally posted by WPRESTO That's a lot of forethought, preparation and post exposure work to generate a single image, but the result certainly justifies the efforts. It looks like a painting = as if someone visualized all the elements they wanted and how they should be arranged.
Thanks a lot. It was a bit of luck actually. I was looking for other spots that I didn't find, and on my way back I stopped there, walked around the lake (lost some time), and ended up with the sun shining from the direction at the back of my right shoulder (checked with photographer-ephemeris web app) between two mountains. Just going out to new places creates luck!
Originally posted by Mikesul Evokes memories of Bierstadt or Hudson River School painters.
Yep. I think that effect is created by atmospheric haze in the distance + warn tint.
Originally posted by barondla Agree the image is perfect. Never considered the question if there can be too many perfect elements in a single image. Understand dlh's point. Don't know if I agree or not. Usually a picture with many points of interest fails because some parts are weaker and bring the whole image down.
The problem with landscape photography is that we can't move the elements, we have some variables such as the lens focal length, view point, excluding by framing, time of the year/month/day, post-processing but beyond that, either the landscape will work well, average or won't work. For example, I would have liked bigger rocks / water flaw in the foreground, but the only way practical way to achieve that would be to use a wide angle lens; and 28mm vertical is more like ~20mm horizontal with a 3:2 sensor, so that's wide already. I'm looking forward to comments, giving me some ideas of how I can improve my next shots.
Originally posted by Patriot Perfect work, I liked it very much.
Thanks. Truth be told, I browsed your landscape images, they give me some inspiration.
---------- Post added 03-09-19 at 09:31 ----------
Originally posted by Rondec very much in the Hudson River School
That's right, there is some "aerial" effect in my photograph. I'm not sure if "aerial" effect is the correct term, I've read this term in the book "The photographer's eye" from Michael Freeman, that you recommended to me a while ago
.