Is there a picture here?

[PKFUSION]

Typical of me, I saw this and loved the way the light on the water presented a 'path'. I moved until the boy was just to one side of it and took the picture. I exp. bracketed the picture in case and this is the 'correct' one.

My problem is that I have produced several cropped and played with versions and none recreate what I thought I saw!

Should I have taken it from somewhere else? What am I missing? Or is there no picture to be had!! This is why I take few landscapes....

[Donald]

My problem is that I have produced several cropped and played with versions and none recreate what I thought I saw!

And that, I suggest, lies at the centre of the dilemma you have - What was it you saw? What is the difference between this image and what you saw? Put that into words and you will have answered your own question.

For what it's worth, I think there is a very good picture in there. You haven't quite brought it out, but it's not far away.

Your question suggests you feel the same. So, what is it that's not right? Maybe think about things like exposure. And then about composition.

[Inkanyezi]

I guess you can get back to the location and work more on it?

As I see it, one idea is to connect the footpath in the foreground to the path of the sky reflected in the water. Whether any person should be in the picture and where to place that person regarding the path in the water depends on the line of the footpath, but a person on the other side of the pond, walking away along that line might do the thing. Whether one is needed in the foreground I don't know, but I'd prefer a standing or walking position before one sitting down. A somewhat lower angle would hide the reflection of the sky to the left a bit. I would probably tilt a little forward to get the foreground sharp as well as the vanishing "path" farther away.

[UKDivemaster]

I am no expert but......


I think the main issue is with your metering. You want to pick out the path of light but your in-camera metering system has chosen an average exposure based on the overall scene. This has left the sky somewhat blown out (overexposed) and the contrast quite low.

The other issue is with the overall composition. If the 'path' is the subject then you should make it the major element in the picture. As shot, it might take up about 5-10% of the image frame. Sometimes this is necessary to provide context and a sense of place to the subject. But for me there is a lot of 'dead space' that does nothing to enhance the 'path of light'.

I have had a little play with your image - but it would be easier if we could work on the RAW file.

[PKFUSION]

I did take a +1 and -1 stop at the time and I do shoot in RAW.
I also tried taking some different compositions at the time and one is similar to the last suggestion.



To connect the real path to the light one is probably what I need to do to get the picture I saw! Will need to go back for that one. Thanks for all the suggestions. For me the original is just too much of a sea of browny green!

[JPS]

Just playing in PP thought it would be worth you looking at.

[UKDivemaster]

Could this be a PP competition?

[JPS]

Count me out, I'm only practising; as you can tell by my poor effort.
I only wanted to try and show how I 'sort of' saw this image when I first saw it and give Peter possibly another idea if he did want to re-shoot. I have certainly taken many pictures, that appeared to be what I wanted to capture at the time, but didn't meet my expectations when I got home.
Peter, I hope you find whatever you think might be missing.

[PKFUSION]

Wish i could get them to sit where I wanted as easily as that!. Thanks for the thoughts. Must brush up on my PP skills. I do like this forum!