Lake Views - Critique please

[Brownbear]

I'm still working on improving my landscape images. These are views of Burnaby Lake, BC. I would be especially appreciative of feedback on whether the subject is clear, my composition, and post processing. (not cropped)

Aperture Priority SS 1/80 sec ISO 400 (hand held)

#1




Aperture Priority SS 1/125 sec ISO 400 (hand held)
#2

I was going to crop this image to eliminate the pier on the left side because it lead one eye out of the scene but I like that it is different...



Thank you.

[Shadowman]

In the first shot you covered a lot of real estate but only a portion of the image contains the lake. I would consider renaming this particular image. There are so many elements within this image that some need to be eliminated or shortened, for instance the dock area is interesting and has good leading lines but there is actually too much in the scene. The wood by itself could be used for a singular theme. The sky is interesting also but there is too much visible.

The second image I like as is.

[Brownbear]

Thank you John. Good feedback on the 1st image. Truly appreciated.

The appeal for me the pier leading to the sky. And now that I look at it again I think I could crop it in half.

In the first shot you covered a lot of real estate but only a portion of the image contains the lake. I would consider renaming this particular image. There are so many elements within this image that some need to be eliminated or shortened, for instance the dock area is interesting and has good leading lines but there is actually too much in the scene. The wood by itself could be used for a singular theme. The sky is interesting also but there is too much visible.

The second image I like as is.

[Polar01]

Christina: just a little adjustment to it I add a Grad of -2 stops from top to level of seat of bench, added a touch of contrast, clarity and added +3 temperature.
Maybe it may help as the sky is nice.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

Great exposure on both images! Their chosen compositions really depend on what you want the subject to be.

If I take the first image as is, it's a great example of why placing the horizon in the center can work really well, despite the often-quoted rule that dictates otherwise. The leading lines of the foreground boardwalk and the cloud formations directly point to the center point of the horizon. If that's what you wanted, well done! If that's not what you wanted, well, you know the rest without me explaining it.

I disagree that the left side of the boardwalk in the second image leads the eye out of the frame. The bench is such a bright orange that it successfully holds the eye and prevents it from wavering. You might want to consider cropping that image at the top to a format that is about twice as wide as high, leaving everything in the bottom area as is. Doing so places great emphasis on the bench and employs an aspect ratio of the image that is similar to the aspect ratio of the bench itself.

For me, the lake is not the subject in either image. If you agree, the title of your thread is misleading. The corollary is that both images failed if your intent was to make the lake the subject. I strongly suspect that it's your thread title, not the subject of either image, that deserved more thought.

[Mike Buckley]

Allan,

For me, your treatment of the sky looks a bit too intense and unnatural. You also seem to have treated the sky but not its reflection. It's all a matter of taste but that's my reaction. I'm sensitive to your treatment because I also have a tendency to make skies unnaturally intense.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Allan. I like your edit very much and I will try it, likely with the sky just a little less of a deep blue. I will give it a try this weekend and post.

Christina: just a little adjustment to it I add a Grad of -2 stops from top to level of seat of bench, added a touch of contrast, clarity and added +3 temperature.
Maybe it may help as the sky is nice.

Cheers: Allan

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike. As always for some great feedback. Good to know that a strong colour can hold the eye.

No the lake is not the subject, it is indirectly the sky. I put a lot of thought into the lines, so nice to know. I will try your suggestions tomorrow.

Great exposure on both images! Their chosen compositions really depend on what you want the subject to be.

If I take the first image as is, it's a great example of why placing the horizon in the center can work really well, despite the often-quoted rule that dictates otherwise. The leading lines of the foreground boardwalk and the cloud formations directly point to the center point of the horizon. If that's what you wanted, well done! If that's not what you wanted, well, you know the rest without me explaining it.

I disagree that the left side of the boardwalk in the second image leads the eye out of the frame. The bench is such a bright orange that it successfully holds the eye and prevents it from wavering. You might want to consider cropping that image at the top to a format that is about twice as wide as high, leaving everything in the bottom area as is. Doing so places great emphasis on the bench and employs an aspect ratio of the image that is similar to the aspect ratio of the bench itself.

For me, the lake is not the subject in either image. If you agree, the title of your thread is misleading. The corollary is that both images failed if your intent was to make the lake the subject. I strongly suspect that it's your thread title, not the subject of either image, that deserved more thought.

[Mike Buckley]

No the lake is not the subject, it is indirectly the sky.

At the risk of getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics, the subject is never indirectly anything; the subject is always directly the subject. If you wanted the sky to be the subject in either image, in my mind both images failed.

[Brownbear]

I agree and I know what you mean but is not that simple.

In the first image everything should draw you to the horizon of the trees (and reflection in the water) It should feel like you want to walk down the pier to see that view BUT the view is extra special because of the beautiful sky and because the sky is the brightest part of the image and filled with beautiful clouds you can't help but look up at the sky, hence indirect.

In the 2nd image it is about the bench but only because one longs to visit such a place where one can see a glimpse of the big city beyond the treeline, and it should also make you want to sit down and enjoy the place (and wonder what the view on the other side holds) but it is also indirectly about the beautiful sky because without the sky the overall scene wouldn't be as pretty.

All that said, I'm working on it... ie; definite subject in the image.

Until tomorrow...

At the risk of getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics, the subject is never indirectly anything; the subject is always directly the subject. If you wanted the sky to be the subject in either image, in my mind both images failed.

[Mike Buckley]

Your detailed explanation confirms that everything you wanted to accomplish in the two images was indeed accomplished. Consider thinking of subjects as primary and secondary rather than direct and indirect.

[FrankMi]

Hi Christina, you have said it yourself but let me phrase it in slightly different terms. The subject is usually the attention grabber, the thing that your eye is attracted to.

Thinking in those terms what would you consider the subject in each of the images? One of the things that make the subject work well for most folks is having the remainder of the image support the subject and that is the case here.

Forgetting the title for now, both of these images work fairly well as they stand. One leads you to explore, the other to relax. As long as you can bring out an emotion in the viewer, you have a successful image worth presenting and viewing.

[Mike Buckley]

As long as you can bring out an emotion in the viewer, you have a successful image worth presenting and viewing.

Amen to that!

[Lon Howard]

Hello Christina,

Just a thought about your interpretation of image #1. You mentioned many elements that invited you to the scene (in the order that you mentioned them): horizon, trees, reflection in the water, walk down the pier, sky (in general), and clouds.

You could experience all of these beautiful things as a whole without having any concern as to what the 'subject' was. But when all of these beautiful things are converted to a flat, two dimensional image, a disassociated viewer has no idea what you were thinking and feeling when you were there, and so the impulse is to decide ON THEIR OWN what the subject is or should have been. It is a rare image indeed that can successfully communicate that the subject is EVERYTHING. That's why most viewers (unaware of what you were thinking), want to boil the image down to one or two points of interest. So we might suggest cropping this or that, perhaps blurring or desaturating, etc.; in order to reduce the points of interest to a number we can process. In other words, you can completely succeed in presenting everything YOU intended, but with this many elements in play, few viewers will ever know what YOUR intent or feeling was.

Now that's in general...in this particular image (#1), for me there's just two much bright sky for anything else to compete with. I am not aware of any reflection in the water because it comprises such a small portion of the frame. I'd like to walk down the pier but I can't because my starting point is way up in that bright sky. Most of the interest in the sky is in the lower portion, not in the upper. I find that if l scroll the image vertically so that the upper portion is cropped out, I can gaze at it for a much longer time and experience most of the elements that you found attractive. But that's just me, just one viewer.

Thank you for posting this and to others for all of the subsequent comments that made me think about it.

[Mike Buckley]

Lon,

Your comments in your second paragraph that generally apply to most images are articulated exceptionally well and explicitly address issues Christina has been grappling with in recent months.

However, I disagree with your comments in the third paragraph. For me, the sky is just right both in brightness and amount, especially now that I know what she intended the subject to be. If the image is cropped to reduce the amount of sky being displayed, the subject changes to become the boardwalk. (Doing so would be fine but the subject would not be what Christina intended.) Though I agree that the reflection in the water is a small part of the image, I disagree that it's so small that the viewer isn't aware of it, especially because the boardwalk and cloud pattern point directly to that area of the image.

Great discussion!

[ShaneS]

Chirstine, while you are looking at the first image again try a square crop to the bend in the dock on the right hand side. That will leave you most of the sky and still leads the viewer to the end as you intended. I would also look at enhancing the cloud formations a bit like you did in the second image which is very nice BTW.

[Brownbear]

Thank you to all.

Frank... I will try to think like this. I just love beautiful skies and I'm learning that alone they are not usually a strong enough subject for an image so I'm trying to learn to work around my thought process, by having another strong subject (primary subject) with the sky being the secondary subject.

Lon... Thank you for a very helpful analysis. You've certainly nailed my challenge with capturing landscape images so your reply is very helpful to me.. I agree with all your points but if I were to crop the image I would do it the other way around because capturing beautiful skies is about the only thing I do know for sure that I like capturing in landscape images. When I get to my edits I will try making the sky less bright.

Shane...

Thank you. I will try just that. Truly appreciated!

[Brownbear]

Following are my edits following the guidelines and advice received by everyone. Thank you so much!

#1 Following Allan's and Mikes suggestions, with the addition darkening the exposure of the water below the bench line to match the gradient suggested by Allan (used -1.3 exposure gradient), and a selective curves adjustment on the bench to brighten it. I also sharpened the bench and added clarity to the bench.

I like the crop. The colours are a little dark for the mood I wish to convey but I'm delighted that I was able to following the processing suggestions. Thank you.





#2

This is now my all time favourite landscape image that I have managed to date. I actually adore it. At least at this moment. I still prefer the long leading lines of the dock, but I also adore the crop suggested by Shane... Thank you so much.

Following Shane's suggestion for a crop, and Jon's suggestion to darken the sky




Just darkening the sky



Cropping the sky as suggested by Jon. It works but the image is too much about the dock for me. (*This edit is not sharpened)




* I recently acquired Photoshop CC as part of the Adobe's Cloud Program. I've been using layers to sharpen my images and just today I learned that I have not been sharpening my images (except for a little bit in ACR in Lightroom) because I was applying the unsharp mask to the blank layer mask instead of the layer. I learned this today because when I was working on the bench I checked to see how sharp the letters were in the plaque on the bench. I couldn't see any difference after sharpening so I tried the un-sharp mask on the layer, and it definitely made a difference.

PS Shane - Earlier I forgot to say that I didn't do anything to enhance the clouds in the 1st image so I think you may have been referring to Allan's edit where he darkened the sky with a gradient... So i darkened the sky in the 2nd image by using the adjustment brush in ACR... In hindsight I should've tried the gradient but forgot because it is the first time I've used one. Anyhow I think darkening the sky did enhance the clouds.

PPS I forgot to mention that I also brightened the trees on the horizon line in the 2nd image.

[ShaneS]

You are catching on to this editing stuff pretty well Christina! I like the revised #1 a lot and and have one minor and not absolutely necessary change to suggest. Try to lighten the dark leftmost part of the sky slightly in that image to see if it works for you.

I really like the square crop and I will be very interested to see if others do as well. I do think that you lost some pop in your edit and that could be addressed by adding back some contrast (which will also add some texture to the sky) via an s-curve or by adjusting the black slider to that you get the same lovely pop that you achieved in your first edit.

[Stagecoach]

Yes the square crop works for me Christina and agree with what Shane has said about the slight loss of contrast with this edit. The version with the sky heavily cropped, sorry, no.

Grahame