Loch Lomond Morning with a Vari ND

[Donald]

I said in this thread that after having tried to capture good pictures with my new Vari ND in the evening, I then tried it in the early morning, when the mist had come down and completely changed the atmosphere.

Again these are presented as a pair, just so that we can compare and contrast two approaches and compositions.

And ,as previously, this is about experimentation and I'll be happy to read your thoughts about what's good, bad or indifferent.

Loch Lomond Morning #1


40D, Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS @140mm. ISO 100. 30s@f22. Singh Ray Vari ND


Loch Lomond Morning #2


40D, Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS @120mm. ISO 100. 75s@f22. Singh Ray Vari ND

[JPS]

Hi Donald,
I have been looking at these shots for a while now and have finally decided #1 is my favourite. I'm still not sure why, which worries me, perhaps because they are both good shots and there is no 'best' shot.

Regards
John

[Plumcrak]

Donald, you learn quick...great images! The first one is my favorite out of this set...I think it is the tone of the water that gives a calming effect.

[Donald]

Thank you. guys

The first one is my favorite out of this set...I think it is the tone of the water that gives a calming effect.

I wondered about the tone of the water on that one and if some people might feel it was too dark and gloomy. But that's how it was at that time and I didn't want to start lightening it up and change what I had in my head as I looked at it.

[Dave Humphries]

#1 is my preferred shot.

May I ask if the darkening at the top of frame is artificial or natural? (and if I may (ask, that is), which was it?)

I do find myself wondering why the slither of light water doesn't extend to the left edge of frame - the answer seems to be a small island sticks up and 'touches' the land behind. I mention it because it attracts my attention, which may not be what was intended.

With #2, the empty space in the sky just doesn't work for me, it is too overpoweringly bright and I have to squint to see the detail in the shoreline and landscape below. Personally, I'd crop to something like 7 x 5, but I know you're only shooting square these days, so I won't hold my breath

I should perhaps mention I have been extreme telephoto shooting heat hazed, low contrast, landscape views today and am dismayed at the amount of loss in detail, so that is inevitably clouding my judgement, if you'll excuse the unintentional pun.

[Polar01]

I vote for #1, with #2 with me is the three ridges it bothers me, it in some ways gives the impression of a clone job. If that third ridge was deeper in fog I believe it would work for me.

Cheers:

Allan

[ucci]

Okay #1 just has to be the best of two rather excellent shots, purely by the criteria that really I prefer #2,and what would I know? Sorry to be the odd one out. Why? Well, I like that the background mist and light in #2 clearly tells me it is a misty morning but there is still enough definition in the foreground to give me the lay of the land. As for #1, and this is being a most pernickety person, I find the apparent vignette effect especially around the bottom edge and the regularity of the parallel striations across the water a bit distracting. Both are well framed and I like the effect of 'depth' from the 'layers' of rolling hills cutting diagonally across the shot. In this I think #2 is a tad more effective than #1. Maybe it may be felt that the waters of the loch are clipped and so a bit 'bland' in #2 and could do with a bit of wave wash stirred up by Nessie's tail? Despite this, it is my favourite of the two.
This is purely my personal opinion and flies in the face of the comments above from others who are more knowledgeable than me in these things. Maybe I should have just stayed in bed and kept my mouth shut? Or watched more of the wretched Olympics?

[Mike Buckley]

Considering that this is about experimentation, I'll mention that, for me, it's not a question of which one is best. Instead, I can't help but feel that neither of them stands up to the quality of your other Vari ND images. That's partly because you set a rather high standard in the other images that you posted before these.

[Donald]

Dear All

Thank you for your very constructive comments. It's much more intersting when people are able to express views about 'why', rather than just say good or bad.

I agree with Mike that these are perhaps not just quite of the same standard as the evening shots I posted. I have to admit to liking the second one. I was so struck by how the lines of the hills mirrored each other.

And in response to:

May I ask if the darkening at the top of frame is artificial or natural? (and if I may (ask, that is), which was it?)

It is natural. I wouldn't have put so distinctive an edge-burn as that into an image.