Bhimtal Landscape - B&W - C&C Welcome

[fotugraphy]

Hi, going forward on my photography venture I stopped and clicked another shot. Can you please review it and let me know what exactly is missing for it to make it much better?

It was clicked when it was drizzling on the way to bhimtal, Uttarakhand, India and we were stuck in traffic jam. I saw this beautiful cloudy scene and rushed to a shelter where i can frame the shot as soon as i reached the shelter i saw this S-Curve river so decided to include it in the shot where it can help to lead viewer's eyes to the lovely clouds and layers of mountains.

Please provide your views and suggestion with composition and processing.

Thank You

PS : Please click on the image for lightbox screen view (Highly recommended).



SOOC to JPEG :

[Manfred M]

Raj - I think this is pretty typical of what one sees when we get into the mountains, we take a picture of a scene that overwhelms us while we take in its beauty, and when we look at it, that feeling is very difficult to capture.

When you look at this image, my first question to you is "what is the subject"; and regardless of the answer, I think whatever your subject is, there is too much other material in the image to cause us to not focus on the subject. There is simply too much other superfluous material in the image.

When I look at the shot; I see at least two images in it; the river and valley in the foreground and the mountains and the clouds in the background. I find that both, in isolation work better than the combination of both.

[MarieV]

A beautifully composed image with the swirling river and backdrop of the layered mountains taken in poor conditions. Well done - I like it a lot. How does it look in colour!!

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Raj,

I , too, see 2 images.

One with emphasis on the winding river.

The other , the clouds and mountains. ( cropping a little downwards from the top.)

HTH

[Shadowman]

Raj,

Image has a grainy film/faded effect, was this applied post-processing? Adds an old world quality to the scene. Nice effort.

[fotugraphy]

Raj - I think this is pretty typical of what one sees when we get into the mountains, we take a picture of a scene that overwhelms us while we take in its beauty, and when we look at it, that feeling is very difficult to capture.

When you look at this image, my first question to you is "what is the subject"; and regardless of the answer, I think whatever your subject is, there is too much other material in the image to cause us to not focus on the subject. There is simply too much other superfluous material in the image.

When I look at the shot; I see at least two images in it; the river and valley in the foreground and the mountains and the clouds in the background. I find that both, in isolation work better than the combination of both.

Thanks for your valuable review and suggestion. My main subject is the layered mountains. When i stepped out of the car, i saw only layered mountains and wanted to shoot that but then i looked at this snake river, so decided to include the s-curve of the river.

Please provide more information on "superfluous material" so that i can work on it. It is my very first attempt with the landscapes.

[fotugraphy]

A beautifully composed image with the swirling river and backdrop of the layered mountains taken in poor conditions. Well done - I like it a lot. How does it look in colour!!

thanks for your kind review and appreciation. I have updated the description with SOOC converted to JPEG image.

[fotugraphy]

Hi Raj,

I , too, see 2 images.

One with emphasis on the winding river.

The other , the clouds and mountains. ( cropping a little downwards from the top.)

HTH

Thanks for your kind review and suggestion. Sorry, I'm not able to locate how much from top you are suggesting to crop. If possible can you please use the image and crop to show. Really Appreciated.

[fotugraphy]

Raj,

Image has a grainy film/faded effect, was this applied post-processing? Adds an old world quality to the scene. Nice effort.

Thanks for your kind review and appreciation. It was shot at 6400 ISO using APC crop body. They are not very good at 6400 ISO, i tried to remove the noise then i decided to add little bit of grainy effect. It is very subtle.

[Mike Buckley]

I'll comment only about the quality of the conversion to monochrome: The areas that display the least detail in the color version display more detail in the conversion. Yet the areas that display the most detail in the color version display less detail in the conversion. Consider improving the second situation.

[fotugraphy]

I'll comment only about the quality of the conversion to monochrome: The areas that display the least detail in the color version display more detail in the conversion. Yet the areas that display the most detail in the color version display less detail in the conversion. Consider improving the second situation.

Thanks a lot for your valuable review and suggestion. Will reprocess the image again as suggested and will post it.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Raj,

Here's a couple of quick crops via GIMP.





HTH

[Manfred M]

Raj - let me start where I left off on my first posting; the two pictures that I see here, and that will explain where I'm coming from compositionally. After that we can get into the execution issues. I've done some really quick playing around with them as well, so that you can see where I am coming from directionally.

Image 1: The mountain tops




Image 2 - The river valley





One of the key compositional "rules" in photography is simplification. If any shot is "too busy", we can't really find a place for our eyes to focus one, and that generally means that the composition is not strong enough. When I said there were actually two pictures that I saw in this shot, it was really what I am showing here; the mountains, the clouds and sky. Something abstract; with the eyes being drawn towards the lighter areas. I would probably want to zoom in even more; understanding that the haze is going to be a bit of an issue.


The second shot, my eyes are drawn in towards the bright river. The "s" curve of the river and the area towards the upper left are compositionally strong elements. I've more or less placed them on the image diagonals to draw the eyes to the edges. I'd probably crop the left side a bit more as it seems a bit heavy and not adding to the image.


So as a single image, there is too much superfluous material; but by splitting the image into two parts, much of that is eliminated. Get closer and crop (in camera) more and you'll get a stronger composition.

[csa mt]

I'll go against the "flow" and say that I really like the full image, especially in B&W! The winding river takes my eye thru the image to the majestic mountains! Just my opinion, but I wouldn't change a thing.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Raj,

Btw, if our "edits" seem similar, maybe t's because I am an avid follower of Manfred's posts.

I carefully read and visualize the concepts of Manfred.

Another mentor I follow is Bill.

Manfred's top image is superior to mine. But I'd crop closer to the tip of the mountain. Make the image "foggier".

In the river crop, I wanted to draw the viewer to the apex of the 2 triangles on the left same with the 3 triangles on the right all emphasizing the river. So if I edit further, I'll want to darken the triangles more. Clone out those 2 bright objects.

Thanks

[Mike Buckley]

crop (in camera)

Years ago on the first photo site that I participated in (long before having heard of CiC), I selected the theme of a competition to be that all images would be cropped differently than the "in-camera crop." I was astounded that so many really accomplished photographers were completely thrown by the use of that term. I'm not sure that my follow-up explanation was helpful to everyone. I'll only mention here for those who aren't familiar with the term that when we compose an image in the viewfinder, many people refer to that as cropping in the camera or as an in-camera crop, as opposed to cropping afterward using post-processing software.

[fotugraphy]

Hi Raj,

Here's a couple of quick crops via GIMP.



Thanks a lot for your effort in explaining the point. Really appreciated.



HTH

[fotugraphy]

Raj - let me start where I left off on my first posting; the two pictures that I see here, and that will explain where I'm coming from compositionally. After that we can get into the execution issues. I've done some really quick playing around with them as well, so that you can see where I am coming from directionally.

Image 1: The mountain tops




Image 2 - The river valley





One of the key compositional "rules" in photography is simplification. If any shot is "too busy", we can't really find a place for our eyes to focus one, and that generally means that the composition is not strong enough. When I said there were actually two pictures that I saw in this shot, it was really what I am showing here; the mountains, the clouds and sky. Something abstract; with the eyes being drawn towards the lighter areas. I would probably want to zoom in even more; understanding that the haze is going to be a bit of an issue.


The second shot, my eyes are drawn in towards the bright river. The "s" curve of the river and the area towards the upper left are compositionally strong elements. I've more or less placed them on the image diagonals to draw the eyes to the edges. I'd probably crop the left side a bit more as it seems a bit heavy and not adding to the image.


So as a single image, there is too much superfluous material; but by splitting the image into two parts, much of that is eliminated. Get closer and crop (in camera) more and you'll get a stronger composition.

Thanks a ton for your effort for explaining it in such detail. Really invaluable knowledge shared about the image and the composition. I will surely keep your valuable suggestions in my mind related to composition in my next landscape photo shoot. Really appreciated.

[Mike Buckley]

I mentioned that I would only comment on the quality of the conversion but I changed my mind. People have discussed that the image is composed to present two images that pull at each other for attention. Consider this famous image by Ansel Adams, which is similar. I'm at a loss to articulate why such a similar image as the one by Adams works so well without pulling our eyes to and fro, but that's how I respond to it.

[Donald]

I'm at a loss to articulate why such a similar image as the one by Adams works so well without pulling our eyes to and fro, but that's how I respond to it.

I don't think I'm any more equipped to comment than Mike, but I feel the relationship between the river and the mountains in Adams' image is much more intimate and 'connected' than in Raj's image. I think, about the Adams image, that the curve and line of the river takes us right back into the mountains.