Learning Landscapes - A Breath of Winter

[Brownbear]

The one thing I'm still wondering about is the line in the ice, which points indirectly (via a curve) to the trees in the fog on the far left, and directly to the trees on the right. Does the line add to the composition, or is it a distraction?

Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

For me, that line of ice doesn't detract but it also doesn't add anything important. In other words, it's fine as is.

[Brownbear]

Thank you, as always.

For me, that line of ice doesn't detract but it also doesn't add anything important. In other words, it's fine as is.

[TonyW]

I like the colours and mood. I can't imagine this would be better in black and white, but then I'm prejudiced.

To me, the second image looks better. The tree on the right has so much character and the line in the ice and its bridesmaids on its left point to it nicely.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Tony and Andrew.

Mark.. thank you for your detailed view of the composition... very helpful. I took 5 or 6 shots of this image but none have more of the tree on the right side.

A special thank you to Grahame for noticing the low resolution of the images and taking the time to mention it. I downsize all my images to 1200 pixels to upload here and I learned that Photobucket changes the size to 1028 pixels and reduces the kb by a factor of 10. I thought that the images I uploaded there would be of the same size I make my images for this forum. Anyhow, I found a box to check that says that while the size uploaded will be 1028 pixels the original size will be displayed in the links that I post here, so I fixed that and these images should be the proper resolution.

Following are my edits, except for the B&W version because it is truly sad looking, very muddy and unattractive. I tried the B&W presets in Elements and Lightroom. I also tried to do my own version of B&W but I just couldn't manage to create the B&W version I see in my mind. ie; Mike, I'm not ready to learn B&W processing yet but I will save this image to try for another day.

I also tried LCE to bring out the trees a bit more and it seemed to work well, and still keep the soft fading away feel however it is not represented in these edits as a selective edit because I couldn't manage to erase the LCE mask around just the trees with any skill... ie; obvious erase lines seen. This time around I did use LCE to sharpen and I think it brought the trees.

1. With the water cropped



2. At 700 KB



3. Another version of the first image with more of the trees on the left and the right.



Thank you to all. This park is only about an hour away from where I live so I will return on another foggy morning, with my tripod and try again with some new points of view.

[Mike Buckley]

Black-and-white is a whole other realm of photography. You remember that I have often mentioned that most people improve by mastering a relatively limited range of capabilities before moving on to master other capabilities. It's in that context, especially considering how much you enjoy color photography, that I encourage you to gain at least a reasonable command of color photography in the styles that are most important to you before trying the realm of monochrome photography.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for understanding. I just thought I would give it a try because you mentioned that it would look nice in B&W, alas not the case in my hands. Yes, indeed on both points.

Black-and-white is a whole other realm of photography. You remember that I have often mentioned that most people improve by mastering a relatively limited range of capabilities before moving on to master other capabilities. It's in that context, especially considering how much you enjoy color photography, that I encourage you to gain at least a reasonable command of color photography in the styles that are most important to you before trying the realm of monochrome photography.

[Stagecoach]

A special thank you to Grahame for noticing the low resolution of the images and taking the time to mention it. I downsize all my images to 1200 pixels to upload here and I learned that Photobucket changes the size to 1028 pixels and reduces the kb by a factor of 10. I thought that the images I uploaded there would be of the same size I make my images for this forum. Anyhow, I found a box to check that says that while the size uploaded will be 1028 pixels the original size will be displayed in the links that I post here, so I fixed that and these images should be the proper resolution.

Hi Christina,

I have to admit I am somewhat confused now as with these latest images I am unable to open and save as a Jpeg to see what the size is. I can still open and save your first ones as Jpeg and see the size 1024 x 682 77/80KB.

As a test today I took a full size image, re-sized to 1024 and saved as a 300KB file and then as a 80KB file. There is a significant difference in quality as would be expected.

Why these no longer show as Jpeg when saved is beyond me but could be something someone else can answer.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

Of the last three images, clicking to display the largest size displayed in the Lytebox and saving to my computer produces the following sizes displayed in my post-processing software:

1: 1200 x 771 - 2.6 MB
2: 1200 x 800 - 2.6 MB
3: 1200 x 747 - 2.6 MB

[Stagecoach]

Of the last three images, clicking to display the largest size displayed in the Lytebox and saving to my computer produces the following sizes displayed in my post-processing software:

1: 1200 x 771 - 2.6 MB
2: 1200 x 800 - 2.6 MB
3: 1200 x 747 - 2.6 MB

Mike,

I have not got a clue what is happening on my machine which is using Windows XP & Google Chrome. Opening in lytebox and saving gives a file of 700KB with an extension of .JPG~ORIGINAL (never seen this before) that I am unable to open in anything. Elements sais it's unrecognisable.

It's the first time I have ever come across any problems opening images from CiC. Strange.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

I come across that problem every once in awhile, Grahame. I've never tried to explain it. If someone did explain it, I probably wouldn't understand it.

[Brownbear]

Grahame and Mike...

I start by processing the raw file in LR (29 MB) export as a jpeg to Photoshop or Elements where I selectively apply an unsharp mask, and resize the PSD file to 1200 pixels (201.5 MB) and save as a jpeg which ends up as 707 KB, which in my new process I upload to Photobucket to display as the original jpeg size which is 707 KB.

I double checked all of these numbers and here is the jpeg file in Drop Box

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iicpfdjp0y...ing%20edit.jpg

707 KB for display on the web seems sufficient to me, (ie; 10 times larger than the previous 70KB) and if Mike's figures are correct with the change I made in the settings Photobucket is now making the image larger for display.

Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

if Mike's figures are correct...Photobucket is now making the image larger for display.

The figures pertaining to file size displayed in my post-processing software are apparently wrong. Windows displays the file sizes not as 2.6 MB but as follows:

1: 637 KB
2: 707 KB
3: 654 KB

By the way, I've always regretted that the acronym, MB, for megabytes also happens to be the initials of my name. Considering that coincidence, you would think I would know at least a little bit about this stuff, but I don't.

EDIT: I now see that my post-processing software displays the correct information in one place and incorrect information in another place. My cataloging software is also confirming the correct information. The reason I did not initially use that software to determine this stuff is because it has occasionally displayed incorrect information in the past. It really should be easier to determine with absolute confidence the correct properties of a file. Sheesh!