"Go for detail, not the wide vista"

[Donald]

That's one of the lessons of landscape photography that you're constantly reminded about. So, when I was in Yosemite in September 2016, I tried to make myself think about that advice. This, I think, was the best result of that.

I think for an image like this, it's all about the processing: Do you get the attention directed to where you need to have it directed? Of course the composition is important. But that's like the raw ingredient. It can be a wonderful composition but be ruined by poor processing that fails to bring out the very best the picture has to offer.

I think this has ended up as a reasonable image, but I'm always interested to read the comment and critique of colleagues on here.

Yosemite Roots

[Mike Buckley]

Most images of this genre aren't particularly effective for the reasons you mentioned. Fortunately, you attended to those issues and the result is a thoroughly enjoyable image. Having digested the overall impressions, I could also enjoy spending considerable time examining the details. I don't immediately have the time to do the image sufficient justice, so I look forward to returning to it later.

[chauncey]

Go for detail, not the wide vista

you have the well done detail, but, why can't you have both...detail in wide vista?

[Donald]

you have the well done detail, but, why can't you have both...detail in wide vista?

Which you can do if you use Extreme Wide Angle lenses. However, I think the more general point, not to confuse anyone who may be just starting on the learning curve of landscape photography, is that we need to think of going in close to capture detail as well as going for that big wide view of the fields and the mountains and the sky, etc.

[bje07]

Wonderful Black and white processing.

[madcrow]

+1 for Jean's comments.

[chauncey]

Which you can do if you use Extreme Wide Angle lenses

Those lenses create nothing but distortion which is not present when a long lens is used on multiple,
photostacked, images, then photomerged.

[Donald]

Those lenses create nothing but distortion which is not present when a long lens is used on multiple,
photostacked, images, then photomerged.

That, with respect William, is nonsense and portrays a misunderstanding of what UWA lenses can do and a lack of awareness about how to use them.

Indeed, your comparison to photomerged images using a longer lens does demonstrate your lack of awareness of how to properly use a UWA lens and what they are for. It has nothing remotely to do with that.

[DanK]

Donald,

First, re the first: this is a very intriguing image. IMHO, you succeeded. I have tried a great many times to capture interesting shapes and textures in photos somewhat like this, and I have almost invariably failed to make them worth looking at. Kudos. I will spend some time thinking about this one.

Second, re the second: a wonderful image. However, since the argument is about UWA, I went to see what focal length you used (I'm a real beginner with wide angle work), and I found that the exif doesn't appear. Can you post the focal length and aperture?

thanks

Dan

[John 2]

That's a stunning conversion Donald and I suspect a clever bit of composition. The fact that you have deliberately lightened the roots in the FG demonstrates to those straight out of the camera doubters, the value of PP in making an image rather than just recording what happens to be there. As for detail versus the wide vista, well I guess it depends on what you are trying to portray. Nice work.

[Shadowman]

Nice grungy look.

[Mike Buckley]

The second image is really gorgeous and I don't remember seeing it. Surely you're not keeping anything so beautiful from us!

[Rita]

I was told awhile ago that for an image to look natural to us the lightest parts should be at the top because the sky is usually brighter than the ground. This image does exactly the opposite and I think it is a brilliant image. Your PP is great and the varying textures too.

[Wavelength]

#1 is a superb image of clarity and concept.....
#2 is both details in the foreground shown along with a wide vista; so you made your point here clear.
However, if there is no foreground subject, like a fa away mountain, only vista has relevance ? is that an exception to the rule?

[Donald]

Thank you all for your comments. I posted the second one just as an example of what a UWA can do that you could not achieve by using a standard lens and merging together a number of files, as suggested by William.

The job of an UWA is not just to get as much into the frame as possible. If it was, then William's argument would hold good. But the fact is that an UWA is a completely different tool for making completely different images. To suggest as William did is, I think, very misleading for anyone starting out on the journey of photography if they are told that stitching a number of frames together achieves the same as using a wide angle or ultra-wide angle lens.

Second, re the second: a wonderful image. However, since the argument is about UWA, I went to see what focal length you used (I'm a real beginner with wide angle work), and I found that the exif doesn't appear. Can you post the focal length and aperture?

Mike - I'm pretty sure this one has been on here before. It's from 2013.

This is Loch Lomond, one of Scotland's more iconic and famous inland waterways. The high point back-right is Ben Lomond.

This was captured with my dear old Canon 40D at 11mm with a Tokina 11-16 f.2.8 lens. The lens was about 6 inches (150mm) from the closest part of the piece of driftwood. The camera was mounted on a tripod that had the legs fully splayed to get a low as possible. I was lying on my stomach and getting wet. It was a 30 second exposure at f16.

The fact that you have deliberately lightened the roots in the FG demonstrates to those straight out of the camera doubters, the value of PP in making an image rather than just recording what happens to be there.

I couldn't agree more. I spent a long time on this one in the digital darkroom (i.e. Silver Efex Pro).

[JBW]

That's one of the lessons of landscape photography that you're constantly reminded about. So, when I was in Yosemite in September 2016, I tried to make myself think about that advice. This, I think, was the best result of that.

I think for an image like this, it's all about the processing: Do you get the attention directed to where you need to have it directed? Of course the composition is important. But that's like the raw ingredient. It can be a wonderful composition but be ruined by poor processing that fails to bring out the very best the picture has to offer.

I think this has ended up as a reasonable image, but I'm always interested to read the comment and critique of colleagues on here.

Yosemite Roots

I hope you don't mind but it was just so much easier to do than explain



The top left to bottom right sight line is just that little bit more powerful with this slightly tighter crop

[Donald]

I hope you don't mind but it was just so much easier to do than explain

The top left to bottom right sight line is just that little bit more powerful with this slightly tighter crop

I don't mind at all. The more my images can encourage people to look critically, assess, draw their own conclusions and be able to explain those, the happier I am.

I see the point being made. For me (and I emphasise that it is just for me), the tighter crop makes it feel a just a bit 'crowded', 'squeezed in', 'cramped'. But given I was there and composed the original, I will be biased.

It would be good to hear other views.

[Wavelength]

#1 is a superb image of clarity and concept.....
#2 is both details in the foreground shown along with a wide vista; so you made your point here clear.
However, if there is no foreground subject, like a fa away mountain, only vista has relevance ? is that an exception to the rule?

Were i asking a wrong question?

[NorthernFocus]

That's one of the lessons of landscape photography that you're constantly reminded about...

Donald, I operate on the other end of the spectrum. Being more comfortable with longer lenses and having an eye for the details in life, I tend to shoot "microscapes" and have to force myself to shoot wider. My wife is forever frustrated when we travel because I come away with images of doors, windows, statues, etc. She simply wants a good overview image of each town. Which I find every excuse in the world why I can't do. I need to shoot from that church steeple, or from the top of that hill over there, or from a helicopter...

In the way of C/C on this one, due to the above I feel a bit more qualified to comment than on most of your images. At least with regard to content and comp. And this one is excellent with the original being better than the recommended crop IMO (no disrespect intended, Brian). I also like the processing FWIW.

[Mike Buckley]

I was told awhile ago that for an image to look natural to us the lightest parts should be at the top because the sky is usually brighter than the ground.

There is also the axiom in studio photography that the subject should be lit from above to look natural to us because we're used to seeing everything lit from above by the sun.

For me, it's better to simply understand why something might appear natural to us and then decide if the subject in question is a good fit with that generality. As an example, imagine in the case of Donald's tree that the other nearby trees are allowing the most amount of direct light to fall only into the bottom area of the scene he framed. In that case, it's actually natural that the brighter areas would be in the bottom of the scene, not the top.

Once we have decided what might appear natural to us, we then have to decide if we even want the image to appear natural. That's because sometimes we simply want a different effect than what tends to naturally happen.