Morning at Echo Lake

[terrib]

A couple of shots of Echo Lake taken at a decent time in the morning. Always interested in feedback. Processed in Lightroom 5.

#1 I think this is my favorite. I'm pretty happy with this image. There are some dark shadows in some areas but in this type of scene I think that looks natural so it doesn't bother me. The crop is only for aspect ratio except for a sliver taken off the left side. 100mm, f5.6 (where was my head?)



#2 I've tried again for some foreground interest and not sure I was successful. I did not include all the land on the right side because there was a parking lot with cars there by the trees. I'm also not sure about leaving the single cloud on the far left and tried a different aspect ratio to crop it out but I just don't like the boxier aspect ratios for landscapes so I went back to this. What do y'all think? Is it worth cloning it out? 55mm, 1/320, f11

[Digital]

Teri, I definitely like the first image. Also, I like the second photo; however I find that the small rock & undergrowth (center - foreground) seems to immediately catch my eye. Now that I have mentioned it am not sure what can be done w/o hurting the integrity of what is a nice photo.

Bruce

[Ken Curtis]

Hi Terri.

I vote for the first image.

I was not able to crop or make adjustments and come up with anything better than what you have for the second image.

[Brownbear]

Adore the 1st image... it's beautiful

[davidedric]

Hi Terri,

Yes #1. For me the problem with #2 is that you've added foreground, but it's not interesting . Can't see why you would want to clone the cloud out, though.

[Mike Buckley]

No worries about the shadows in either image; all of the detail in the shadows is nicely preserved.

I like the foreground interest in the second one. The large cloud on the left doesn't bother me but it also doesn't do a lot for me. There's something about the angle of the lake caused by shooting from that particular position that makes me wish you had been able to move far to your left (perhaps one quarter mile or more) and shoot directly across it toward the mountain. I understand that that may not have been possible for several reasons.

I wish the reflections in the first one weren't so crowded at the bottom of the frame.

Both images are pleasing and well worth your effort.

[kdoc856]

#1 for me, Terri. Just a lovely shot. It's got an effortless balance to it that just invites us in, while the foreground in #2 requires us to do a little work to get to "the good stuff".

[terrib]

Thanks everyone for your comments and feedback. It's much appreciated.

Yes #1. For me the problem with #2 is that you've added foreground, but it's not interesting . Can't see why you would want to clone the cloud out, though.

I don't disagree with you, David, but I guess that begs the question "what makes a foreground interesting?" I've seen pictures where the foreground "interest" is just a rock or a log. What do we look for when trying to add foreground and why do we do it? It seems like we do it to add some depth and give a sense of scale. But when composing this type of shot I always have trouble figuring out what will work.

[terrib]

...
I like the foreground interest in the second one. The large cloud on the left doesn't bother me but it also doesn't do a lot for me. There's something about the angle of the lake caused by shooting from that particular position that makes me wish you had been able to move far to your left (perhaps one quarter mile or more) and shoot directly across it toward the mountain. I understand that that may not have been possible for several reasons.

I wish the reflections in the first one weren't so crowded at the bottom of the frame.

Both images are pleasing and well worth your effort.

Interesting that you like the foreground "interest". See above response to David.

No it wasn't possible to get to the perspective you mention. Crowding the reflections at the bottom also bothered me a little and I can fix it by adding back in the sliver I cropped off the side. It does, however, place the horizon exactly in the middle which some wouldn't like either. Personally I don't usually mind the middle horizon with reflection shots.

[jprzybyla]

I like both of them Terri. I do not do landscapes... Florida does not have country like what is shown in your images. A beautiful part of the world where you captured these.

[Mike Buckley]

It does, however, place the horizon exactly in the middle which some wouldn't like either.

Some people love horizons placed in the middle and some people hate them or at least think they should because that's one of the so-called rules of photography. You can't please anyone other than yourself all of the time, so please yourself unless you're shooting for a paying client, trying to win a contest or are similarly beholding to others.

[Digital]

Some people love horizons placed in the middle and some people hate them or at least think they should because that's one of the so-called rules of photography. You can't please anyone other than yourself all of the time, so please yourself unless you're shooting for a paying client, trying to win a contest or are similarly beholding to others.

I agree with Mike.

Bruce

[kdoc856]

...that begs the question "what makes a foreground interesting?" I've seen pictures where the foreground "interest" is just a rock or a log. What do we look for when trying to add foreground and why do we do it? It seems like we do it to add some depth and give a sense of scale. But when composing this type of shot I always have trouble figuring out what will work.

I feel your pain here, Terri. That's the exact question I'm trying to work through as well. Maybe it's not just how interesting the foreground feature is in and of itself, but also how it contributes to balance and helping guide our sight line toward the crux of the shot.

[terrib]

I like both of them Terri. I do not do landscapes... Florida does not have country like what is shown in your images. A beautiful part of the world where you captured these.

Thanks, Joe. I know what you mean. Being in Texas is what got me to shooting birds. There are landscape shots to be found there, but it's not nearly as easy.

[terrib]

I feel your pain here, Terri. That's the exact question I'm trying to work through as well. Maybe it's not just how interesting the foreground feature is in and of itself, but also how it contributes to balance and helping guide our sight line toward the crux of the shot.

I think you are right. I guess I shouldn't approach it as trying to add foreground interest for the sake of foreground interest.

[SpiderBob]

Terri,
I actually like the second one better. It is not as crowded to me. Not quite sure about the cloud on the left, but it isn't saying remove me either. I can see myself in this picture sitting on the rock on the lower right drinking a cup of coffee. Nice picture.

[Kathy O]

A couple of shots of Echo Lake taken at a decent time in the morning. Always interested in feedback. Processed in Lightroom 5.

#1 I think this is my favorite. I'm pretty happy with this image. There are some dark shadows in some areas but in this type of scene I think that looks natural so it doesn't bother me. The crop is only for aspect ratio except for a sliver taken off the left side. 100mm, f5.6 (where was my head?)



#2 I've tried again for some foreground interest and not sure I was successful. I did not include all the land on the right side because there was a parking lot with cars there by the trees. I'm also not sure about leaving the single cloud on the far left and tried a different aspect ratio to crop it out but I just don't like the boxier aspect ratios for landscapes so I went back to this. What do y'all think? Is it worth cloning it out? 55mm, 1/320, f11

Terri, I really like both photo's. I actually like the foreground in photo #2, I can't tell you why but I do like it!! Can you tell me where Echo Lake is located??

Kathy

[terrib]

Terri, I really like both photo's. I actually like the foreground in photo #2, I can't tell you why but I do like it!! Can you tell me where Echo Lake is located??

Kathy

Thanks, Kathy. Echo Lake is at the beginning of the road up Mt Evans. West of Denver, South of Interstate 70, closest to the town of Idaho Springs. I'll be posting pics from Mt Evans later.

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Terri. Nice shots. IMO the second image is a much stronger composition. It looks like you could have done a bit more with the dew drops on the grass in the FG. With as much contrast as you had it may have needed HDR to so more with it. It looks like the closest grass at the bottom of the frame is slightly OOF. Really a lovely setting and you composed it well.

[terrib]

Thanks Dan and Bob also for your feedback.

Since several people mentioned crowding I have modified the first image to a different aspect ratio.