Vimy Ridge, Waterton National Park, Alberta CANADA

[Aeros]

A four stich panoramaWarterton-pan2skyFB by Aeros4, on Flickr

[bnnrcn]

It looks great Richard , I would clone the top of the trees in the FG though

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured, agree about the trees.

[Aeros]

It looks great Richard , I would clone the top of the trees in the FG though

I did consider this but finally decided they did not subtract from the picture but added some perspective as to the position of the viewer from a higher vantage rather from a low flying aeroplane. At the time I took the photo, I had the option to keep the trees out of frame by moving to the right, but intentionally moved to the left to include them, just my take on composition. Thanks for looking and commenting Binnur.

[Aeros]

Nicely captured, agree about the trees.

Hi John, to reiterate on what I explained to Binnur.....
Further to adding the trees intentionally, if it had not been intentional, I could have cloned them out quite easily. I feel that now it is so easy in this digital age, we all tend to rush to this option mainly because we have the tools to do it but don't ponder the point and consider more options. A very successful painter friend of mine told me "The essence of a good painting, is knowing what to take out or what to leave in, and having the courage to do it" I did not just leave it in, I purposely included it. Whether it detracts or improves will be the opinion of the viewer. It does of course prompt discussion which is all good, with a dichotomy of opinions all having value. Thanks for looking and commenting John. BTW please don't misconstrue by my not agreeing to these first two comments that I don't invite critique, to the contrary, I vigorously encourage it as this is what the forum is for, and perhaps you may find me agreeing with future critiques and making the changes you suggest.

[rpcrowe]

Great image. I agree about the trees.

[Aeros]

Great image. I agree about the trees.

Hi Richard, as you can read above I have explained my reasoning here. There is a concept in Fine Art called visual tension. An artist creates visual tension through composition, with the introduction of elements and the placing of the elements to create visual tension a very good video on this topic can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8IeeNC0hRQ. I hope this helps you understand what I was doing with the trees. My favourite painter, Edgar Degas was a master of this, see his painting "The Absinth Drinker" an excellent example of this technique of visual tension.

[Texas Dave]

Wow!

[AlwaysOnAuto]

This is a spectacular scene and shot of it.
I don't mind the trees and agree they do add a certain amount of perspective.
What I'm thinking/wondering is, does it need to be tilted to the left just a tad?
The water level looks like it would drain to the right.
Or is it just me?

[Aeros]

Wow!

Thanks David.

[Aeros]

This is a spectacular scene and shot of it.
I don't mind the trees and agree they do add a certain amount of perspective.
What I'm thinking/wondering is, does it need to be tilted to the left just a tad?
The water level looks like it would drain to the right.
Or is it just me?

I agree Richard, it does look that way. I am obsessive about level horizons and this one was driving me crazy, I came to the conclusion that the very complex perspectives are creating an illusion. It looks to me like the right side lake level is lower, this is caused by the left side of the image being more in the foreground. The beach on the headland (foreground) is were I based my reference for level and as you can see it's not very wide. If I tried to paint from this photo I would have a great struggle with the left side of my brain interfering with the right side and conflicting with what my left brain is telling me, and what my right brain controlled eyes are seeing. The more I look at this landscape the more I realise how complex the perspectives are. I have no problem with members downloading my image to experiment with the illusive level, would like to see the results. Thanks for looking and for your comments.

[Mike Buckley]

Great light and beautiful scenery!

However, the foreground trees being discussed don't create tension for me.

Let's assume though that the foreground information really does provide tension. As the tutorial explains, tension should attract attention to the page. In this case, it should attract attention to the photo. For me, it does the opposite because that foreground information is a detraction that pulls the eye away from the subject rather than toward it. It literally leads the eye outside the frame by inviting an exit via the lower left corner.

The tutorial concludes that tension should be used "in a way that doesn't sabotage the layout." In my opinion, the foreground trees sabotage the photo. Just my opinion.

[Aeros]

Great light and beautiful scenery!

However, the foreground trees being discussed don't create tension for me.

Let's assume though that the foreground information really does provide tension. As the tutorial explains, tension should attract attention to the page. In this case, it should attract attention to the photo. For me, it does the opposite because that foreground information is a detraction that pulls the eye away from the subject rather than toward it. It literally leads the eye outside the frame by inviting an exit via the lower left corner.

The tutorial concludes that tension should be used "in a way that doesn't sabotage the layout." In my opinion, the foreground trees sabotage the photo. Just my opinion.

Thanks for looking and commenting Mike...."Vive la difference"

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I tried rotating the image, but my software foo isn't as great as others here so I lost the foreground and part of the peninsula.



I tried to level it based on the water line to the left of the peninsula and a corresponding piece of land that 'looked' as if it were the same distance from the view point of the center. Does that make sense? This is about 1.5* of tilt I believe.

[Aeros]

I tried rotating the image, but my software foo isn't as great as others here so I lost the foreground and part of the peninsula.



I tried to level it based on the water line to the left of the peninsula and a corresponding piece of land that 'looked' as if it were the same distance from the view point of the center. Does that make sense? This is about 1.5* of tilt I believe.

Alan, to me it now looks like its tilting left. cropping the foreground doesn't work for me, if you want to leave the horizon as is and clone out the trees, I would be interested to see how that works. For me the trees complete what can't be seen, the foreground is a narrow straight and the camera elevation is much higher than the subject ridge.

Without the trees, one could assume that it is endless lake surface in the foreground which it is not. I found the topography here very interesting so I did not seek to modify it by leaving the trees out, but rather frame the scene faithfully as it was. This required I leave the trees in and for me it added the contentious "Visible Tension".

I look forward (if you care to) to your next edit. Thanks Alan for becoming so engaged with this photo. To reiterate, see what I said about "leaving in or taking out" then it all becomes a personal point of view. In this case I prefer to let nature dictate the view created by nature. I cant help liking the "Visual Tension" and all the interesting conversation it has precipitated.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Richard, I agree with all you've said above. I don't have very sophisticated software to play with so can't help any more than this. I too like the trees in the foreground, I just couldn't rotate the image without them ending up going out of the picture. It is tricky getting a good horizon when there isn't a definitive one available.
I guess you just had to 'be there' when the picture was taken to understand how it really looks.
Again, nice shot.

[jcuknz]

I accept and agree for the reason for the trees in the foreground but think they are not large enough to look more than an accidental intrusion. But my first thought was it looks like 'he' used a polarizing filter and didn't adjust as the sequence progressed. Or am I mislead by it being a storm front only covering the ridge

[Aeros]

Richard, I agree with all you've said above. I don't have very sophisticated software to play with so can't help any more than this. I too like the trees in the foreground, I just couldn't rotate the image without them ending up going out of the picture. It is tricky getting a good horizon when there isn't a definitive one available.
I guess you just had to 'be there' when the picture was taken to understand how it really looks.
Again, nice shot.

[Aeros]

I accept and agree for the reason for the trees in the foreground but think they are not large enough to look more than an accidental intrusion. But my first thought was it looks like 'he' used a polarizing filter and didn't adjust as the sequence progressed. Or am I mislead by it being a storm front only covering the ridge

John, my hats off to you. You spotted something that no one else has to date. I had only one day at this location, the weather was gorgeous, too much so as the sky was as clear as gin. in post I added the clouds to give a little drama to the sky scape. I have a file of clouds I have built over time and archived for just such a need as I had here. after flattening the layers I went in to single pixel res., and blended the sky where it contacts the landscape, this took about forty hours of PP but paid off with a sale through my gallery that was the best I've earned for a canvas Giclee.

(With so much debate about the foreground trees I took a look at the full size print hung in my home and notice the crop is different from what is on line, there is more of these dwarf trees showing in the print than in the post, so for me it works.)

I am convinced that maniacal obsession with detail is a good investment with an image that prints two feet by around five feet long. None of the PP affected the image other than the sky-scape. Before I have to field any comments about the validity of changing out the sky, I need to point out that the sky is a fluid mass and in constant change, who is to say (as one suggestion in the Pentax forum) that waiting another day for a better sky-scape would have paid off. The weather could have got worse, or the weather at my next destination (Lac Louise) could be bad and had I been on schedule would have got my shot. As it turned out I took what was given at Vimy ridge and edited it, being on time for Lac Louise paid off in spades in terms of weather and the incredible morning light that filled the scene.

I'm very interested what comments the sky thing may precipitate, as I have read some very hot debates in other forums on the issue of "messing around with a picture", (or PP as I prefer to call it) that it is not Kosher let alone photography. I don't agree with that concept, I don't care what anyone calls it. I make images, with paint and brushes and with camera and software and hope I do it well enough that people buy my work, a few have over the years.

Again, Kudos to you John for your powers of observation (a very important skill for an artist/photographer), thanks for looking and commenting.

[Mike Buckley]

I make images

Exactly. No reasoning requiring that we take rather than make images is reasonable in my mind when it comes to anything other than photographs made for journalistic purposes, forensic purposes, or for displaying a product to prospective buyers or renters.