Landscape Graupel

Nomad · 01-11-2010, 07:04 PM

Any feedback would be appreciated. I am definitely new to photography but these two shots are pleasing to me as the landscape was so alien with the amount of ice build up (graupel).

This one was shot at the same settings as above except at 1/750s

Damn Brit · 01-11-2010, 07:36 PM

The first one doesn't interest me much, I think it fills the frame too much without giving much detail, probably would have been better from further away. You also have blown highlights.
The second one I really like, it looks good in the frame, there is a lot of detail there, the perspective is good and so is the lighting and the way it transitions across the frame. It's a little blown on the extreme right but you could crop that out without impacting the composition (possibly even improve it) if you wanted to.

Nomad · 01-11-2010, 08:00 PM

Thanks for the feedback Gary,
Would you please kill off the duplicate thread I started? This one "dissapeared" and I added a second thinking I did something wrong.
I will play with your suggestion of cropping and see how that helps.
Thanks.

Damn Brit · 01-11-2010, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Nomad

Thanks for the feedback Gary,
Would you please kill off the duplicate thread I started? This one "dissapeared" and I added a second thinking I did something wrong.

Already done.

I'm not saying this is what happened but sometimes wording in a thread (or post) will trigger the forums filters and that entry will go into the moderation queue to be verified. If you ever make a post and it seems to disappear, PM a mod and they can check for it. It's tidier than making a duplicate.

**Ash** · 01-11-2010, 09:17 PM

I usually agree with Gary on these critiques, but on this one I prefer the bright contrast and textures rendered in #1. The lighting is better placed but the blown highlights are unfortunate, though.

The gripe I have with both of them is that they don't offer any perspective of scale in the images - just a whole heap of snow-laden ?foliage. A person standing at the base of the scenes may add that needed sense of scale.

But beyond this also is the amorphous nature of the image, which makes it less appealing despite being quite intriguing.

juu · 01-12-2010, 01:32 AM

I like #2 slightly better as the sky is more interesting. However, I'd consider it in the "abstract" category rather than a "landscape".

Damn Brit · 01-12-2010, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by juu

However, I'd consider it in the "abstract" category rather than a "landscape".

Funny, I hardly ever notice the category prefix, I just look at the pictures. I agree with you about it being abstract though.

Nomad · 01-12-2010, 08:02 PM

Well here is a bit of a crop as suggested although I still didn't provide a real scale reference.....good excuse to go skiing again next week!!

Damn Brit · 01-13-2010, 01:13 AM

After seeing it, I prefer the original. Ash and I disagree on this shot but I don't think this one needs any more scale perspective, it has it's own IMO.

01-12-2010, 08:02 PM	#8
Nomad Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 408 Original Poster	Graupel take two Well here is a bit of a crop as suggested although I still didn't provide a real scale reference.....good excuse to go skiing again next week!! Last edited by Nomad; 02-05-2011 at 05:13 PM.

01-11-2010, 07:04 PM	#1
Nomad Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 408	Graupel Lens: 26mm Camera: k10d Photo Location: Saddleback, Maine ISO: 100 Shutter Speed: 1/1000s Aperture: F9.5 Any feedback would be appreciated. I am definitely new to photography but these two shots are pleasing to me as the landscape was so alien with the amount of ice build up (graupel). This one was shot at the same settings as above except at 1/750s

01-11-2010, 07:36 PM	#2
Damn Brit Guest	The first one doesn't interest me much, I think it fills the frame too much without giving much detail, probably would have been better from further away. You also have blown highlights. The second one I really like, it looks good in the frame, there is a lot of detail there, the perspective is good and so is the lighting and the way it transitions across the frame. It's a little blown on the extreme right but you could crop that out without impacting the composition (possibly even improve it) if you wanted to.

01-11-2010, 08:00 PM	#3
Nomad Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 408 Original Poster	Thanks for the feedback Gary, Would you please kill off the duplicate thread I started? This one "dissapeared" and I added a second thinking I did something wrong. I will play with your suggestion of cropping and see how that helps. Thanks.

01-11-2010, 08:05 PM	#4
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by Nomad Thanks for the feedback Gary, Would you please kill off the duplicate thread I started? This one "dissapeared" and I added a second thinking I did something wrong. Already done. I'm not saying this is what happened but sometimes wording in a thread (or post) will trigger the forums filters and that entry will go into the moderation queue to be verified. If you ever make a post and it seems to disappear, PM a mod and they can check for it. It's tidier than making a duplicate.

01-11-2010, 09:17 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I usually agree with Gary on these critiques, but on this one I prefer the bright contrast and textures rendered in #1. The lighting is better placed but the blown highlights are unfortunate, though. The gripe I have with both of them is that they don't offer any perspective of scale in the images - just a whole heap of snow-laden ?foliage. A person standing at the base of the scenes may add that needed sense of scale. But beyond this also is the amorphous nature of the image, which makes it less appealing despite being quite intriguing.

01-12-2010, 01:32 AM	#6
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	I like #2 slightly better as the sky is more interesting. However, I'd consider it in the "abstract" category rather than a "landscape".

01-12-2010, 01:39 AM	#7
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by juu However, I'd consider it in the "abstract" category rather than a "landscape". Funny, I hardly ever notice the category prefix, I just look at the pictures. I agree with you about it being abstract though.

01-13-2010, 01:13 AM	#9
Damn Brit Guest	After seeing it, I prefer the original. Ash and I disagree on this shot but I don't think this one needs any more scale perspective, it has it's own IMO.