Britannia Park at Dusk

[Round Tuit]

I went to Britannia Park a couple of weeks ago and took a few pictures at dusk. I only managed to look at them last night. Apparently, being retired does not guarantee much free time!

I would greatly appreciate C & C on these two shots.

#1



#2



Do I need to bring up the shadows on the first shot to reveal more texture on the trees in the foreground?
Which one of the two would you consider a "better" composition?

This third shot is not a particularly good photo but I wanted to post it because I had never seen such unusual light streaks in the clouds before.

#3




Thanks,

Andre

[Rebel]

Nice images Andre, the highlights are way gone at the top of the first one though. I'm normally not that fussy but they are very bright!

I love the pink and blue sky in the 3rd one, I'd perhaps crop the lighter bit out at the top? It would give it a nice abstract contrast feel between the lightness of the water and the darkness of the sky?

[bnnrcn]

Hi Andre I don't think you need to bring up the shadows in #1, silhouettes look nice in the image. IMO the composition in #2 is better than the one in #1.

[JohnRostron]

I love the pink and blue sky in the 3rd one, I'd perhaps crop the lighter bit out at the top? It would give it a nice abstract contrast feel between the lightness of the water and the darkness of the sky?

I would agree with that. It could be cropped at the side to maintain the aspect ratio.

All three images are excellent.

John

[Geoff F]

Yes, Andre, being retired is a full time job.

I agree with the others; leave #1 as it is now. The dense black is only a small area and brightening would probably just make it look a 'muddy brown' without adding any worthwhile extra details.

For me, #2 is the slightly better composition, simply because of that spit of land which 'connects' foreground and background together.

And I doubt that a crop of #1 would work. You need to see all of that branch or none of it, and that would be too tight a crop. Maybe tone down the bright area a little instead?

But I suspect that #3 would benefit from removing that bright band at the top.

All good shots though; we are actually being over critical here and comparing these images against the absolute perfection standard.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done, very crisp.

[Round Tuit]

Nice images Andre, the highlights are way gone at the top of the first one though. I'm normally not that fussy but they are very bright!

I love the pink and blue sky in the 3rd one, I'd perhaps crop the lighter bit out at the top? It would give it a nice abstract contrast feel between the lightness of the water and the darkness of the sky?

Matt, Thanks for your comments. I tried cropping photo #3 as you suggested. As you can see, the result is a much improved shot.



Andre

[Round Tuit]

Hi Andre I don't think you need to bring up the shadows in #1, silhouettes look nice in the image. IMO the composition in #2 is better than the one in #1.

Thanks Binnur, I agree with you on both counts. I tried to bring up the shadows in photo #1 but it did not improved the look.

Andre

[Round Tuit]

I would agree with that. It could be cropped at the side to maintain the aspect ratio.

All three images are excellent.

John

Thanks John, I followed your advice on the crop with good result.

Andre

[Round Tuit]

Yes, Andre, being retired is a full time job.

I agree with the others; leave #1 as it is now. The dense black is only a small area and brightening would probably just make it look a 'muddy brown' without adding any worthwhile extra details.

For me, #2 is the slightly better composition, simply because of that spit of land which 'connects' foreground and background together.

And I doubt that a crop of #1 would work. You need to see all of that branch or none of it, and that would be too tight a crop. Maybe tone down the bright area a little instead?

But I suspect that #3 would benefit from removing that bright band at the top.

All good shots though; we are actually being over critical here and comparing these images against the absolute perfection standard.

Geoff, You are right that cropping #1 doesn't work. As for the bright area, it is completely burnt through and I have not been able to tone it down without making it look "faked". I might try some creative cloning of clouds.
I am opened to suggestions as to how I could have taken the shot to avoid the burnt out area. Is HDR the only solution to this problem?

Thank for your kind comments,

Andre

[Wavelength]

Lovely images; my favorite is the first one

[Geoff F]

I'm afraid that 'hot spots' in the clouds near the sun is just one of those facts of life, Andre.

Some people use those variable density things which can sometimes help to place a darkening gradient over a sky. But I never use them simply because it is just one more thing to carry around just in case you might need it one day. But possibly worth considering if you shoot a lot of landscapes like this.

HDR is another option but this can present problems when you have any movement in the scene; or don't have a tripod with you. When working with multiple exposures I always stack the shots as layers then manually merge them with masking.

[joebranko]

#1 is my favourite, and I would have tried some lighting of the tree trunk as you did. #3 has benefitted from the crop of the top and looks much better to me.
PS. I have also tried using a circular polarising filter with mixed results.

[Manfred M]

Nice work on a part of the Ottawa River I find rather uninteresting because the river is so wide there.

I find the areas upstream (starting around parts of Shirley's Bay and up at Phiney's Point) and downstream past Mud Lake, where the river narrows a lot more photogenic.

[Round Tuit]

Lovely images; my favorite is the first one

Nandakumar, I too prefer #1 in spite of its shortcomings. Photo #2 is in my opinion a better composition but it does not elicit the same warm emotional response in me. Sometimes gut feel wins!

Andre

[Round Tuit]

I'm afraid that 'hot spots' in the clouds near the sun is just one of those facts of life, Andre.

Some people use those variable density things which can sometimes help to place a darkening gradient over a sky. But I never use them simply because it is just one more thing to carry around just in case you might need it one day. But possibly worth considering if you shoot a lot of landscapes like this.

HDR is another option but this can present problems when you have any movement in the scene; or don't have a tripod with you. When working with multiple exposures I always stack the shots as layers then manually merge them with masking.

Geoff,

Thanks for your suggestions, I will keep trying.

Andre

[Round Tuit]

#1 is my favourite, and I would have tried some lighting of the tree trunk as you did. #3 has benefitted from the crop of the top and looks much better to me.
PS. I have also tried using a circular polarising filter with mixed results.

Joe,

I agree that the cropped #3 is much improved over the original. However, it still doesn't do much for me. My gut say #1!
Thanks for your comments.

andre

[Round Tuit]

Nice work on a part of the Ottawa River I find rather uninteresting because the river is so wide there.

I find the areas upstream (starting around parts of Shirley's Bay and up at Phiney's Point) and downstream past Mud Lake, where the river narrows a lot more photogenic.

Manfred, I've only joined this forum less than a month ago but it is evident to me that when it comes to photography, you know your stuff! I am therefore very encouraged that you find that my photos are "nice".

I have not explored the Ottawa river upstream of the Nepean sailing club yet. I have found over the past year or so, since I've developed a more serious interest in photography, that my eyes have been opened to so many "photogenic" opportunities just in the west end of our city that I am almost overwhelmed with all the photos that I want to take. I now see beautiful photos in places that have looked familiar for many years! Between the Ottawa river, the Rideau river, the Rideau canal, the Britannia conservation area, the Stoney Swamp conservation area, the opportunities seem endless. We also have countless iconic buildings, monuments, bridges...

I won't miss an opportunity to take a photo anywhere but I am fortunate enough to have many such opportunities at my doorstep.

Thank you for your encouraging comments.

Andre

[Sailorstu]

Andre, I really like your photos but I also take Manfred's point. I hadn't read his comments when I went out last night with my wife to take some bird photos near Mud Lake which is very close to Britannia Park. Anyway, I failed miserably in getting any decent bird photos so we went over to Britannia Yacht club where I took some photos of the sunset (see enclosed). While I'm happy with how these turned out, in hindsight I realize I should have found something like a sailboat to silhouette or identified a narrower part of the river to add more interest to the photos. Anyway, I'm in full agreement with you - this forum is a great place to learn.

Stu

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I've only joined this forum less than a month ago but it is evident to me that when it comes to photography, you know your stuff! I am therefore very encouraged that you find that my photos are "nice".

I have not explored the Ottawa river upstream of the Nepean sailing club yet. I have found over the past year or so, since I've developed a more serious interest in photography, that my eyes have been opened to so many "photogenic" opportunities just in the west end of our city that I am almost overwhelmed with all the photos that I want to take. I now see beautiful photos in places that have looked familiar for many years! Between the Ottawa river, the Rideau river, the Rideau canal, the Britannia conservation area, the Stoney Swamp conservation area, the opportunities seem endless. We also have countless iconic buildings, monuments, bridges...

I won't miss an opportunity to take a photo anywhere but I am fortunate enough to have many such opportunities at my doorstep.

Thank you for your encouraging comments.

Andre

Thanks Andre - let me throw a thought at you on sunset shots. If you do a search on the internet you will find many thousands of shots of the setting sun and people love the funky colours. People just love the mixed light / back lighting that bathes the scene with the diffuse light reflecting from the sky and the warm tones of the back-lit clouds. Take away that aspect of the image and they become downright boring.

Now for the challenge. Go back to these places, scout things out and take some shots without the sunset and work the scene until you have a shot that works really well for you. Now go back to the same place and repeat with the setting sun and all of a sudden you have a great shot. I'm going to post an example of where I've done this at the end.


I personally find that your first image is the strongest of the group, as it has some good compositional elements; the trees on either side of the image. The look of the water and the reeds sticking up add an element of interest.

The second image has the breakwater extending into the river (?) with people on it adding a compositional element and the patterns on the water add an element of interest into the middle ground of the image.

The third shot, I find to be the weakest, as there is nothing other than the sky, the far bank of the river and water (the ripples in the bottom left of the image add a bit).



As I mentioned further up, I will use this scouting technique. Here is my daytime scouting shot (not the Ottawa River, but rather out in the Gaspé at Cap-des-Rosiers)




Here's the sunset shot I went back and took as a result of my scouting work. I changed the composition, based on the original shot a bit, but used the sunlight coming in from the west.