Working on Landscape editing

[Tri Danimal]

Hey gang,

I'm trying to work on my landscape editing and composition. Could you look at the below images and let me know what edit you like the best? I

Edit #1


Edit#2


Edit #3


Edit #4

[mugge]

I would work on either #1 or #3. The second image is neither here nor there. If it were mine I'd concentrate on the third image because it is simpler than the first image.
Cheers Ole

[mugge]

You snug another one in Too tight for mine. I'd keep the rock in the foreground well into the frame. That is only my opinion.
Cheers Ole

[lunarbo]

Number 1 for me.
The foreground rocks add to the interest and give depth to the image.

[Donald]

You ask about composition and ask us which of the four images which we like best.

But what we are presented with is one picture presented in 4 different ways. Composition is much more than that. People can comment on your skills at finishing an image, including your crop choices, but there is only one composition on display.

The time to think about composition is in those moments before you press the shutter. Are the correct elements in the frame? Are the correct elements kept out of the frame? Is the relationship between the elements in the frame expressive and significant? Do you like it? Is the resultant image going to say what you mean?

[Stagecoach]

For me, none of the presented images are working as they are.

No 1 & 2 - Rock at mid frame height on the edge is a distraction.

No 1, 2, 3 & 4 - The significant interesting rock group is too centred.

No 4, IMO would be my favourite if it were significantly cropped at the left and bottom.

I suspect the scene may have worked better if a lower shooting position was used where the foreground is prominent as in No 1, 2.

The watermark does not compliment the images.

[Rufus]

The preferred crop and processing will rather depend on what you are trying to portray and your taste.

Of #1 and #2 I prefer edit #1 because it has a more threatening sky and more contrast in the water and foreground rocks. Edit #2 is a paler, more restful image. Either way I would crop a little more on the left to remove the small rock that is just showing on the left edge of the picture. You could also clone over the small white cloud as it draws the eye from the subject.

Of #3 and #4 I prefer #4 which is peaceful scene. The sky is not a key part of the image and the blue sky in #3 does not fit so well with the rest of the image. This is a case where the "rule of thirds" can be ignored. I would also prefer to see a little more at water the bottom between the rock and the edge of the image (more like edit #3).

On all them the main subject is central in the image (horzontally) which is not ideal here. You might consider cropping the right hand side to reduce the amount of sunlit sandy colour or just tone it down a bit.

[Shadowman]

Overall, the first image needs a bit of tidying up, slight crop on the side to remove the jutting rock which you've done on the other images, also the boat on the horizon and the other spec are a bit distracting. In the third image you've added more clouds which must've been in the first image so there's probably five images to consider overall. The processing looks fine in 1,3,and 4.

[pnodrog]

Edit 3 with the sky cropped down to the top of the blue area. The right hand side cropped to just include or exclude the small vertical rock depending on what works best for you. Lastly the right-hand shore line toned down a bit especially at the edge of the image.

Or something completely different that you settle on ...

PS Whatever you do I suggest you exclude the large center rock in the foreground as it competes too strongly with the island. It also acts as a barrier for the eye. You need an open gate.

[pnodrog]

You ask about composition and ask us which of the four images which we like best.

But what we are presented with is one picture presented in 4 different ways. Composition is much more than that. People can comment on your skills at finishing an image, including your crop choices, but there is only one composition on display.

The time to think about composition is in those moments before you press the shutter. Are the correct elements in the frame? Are the correct elements kept out of the frame? Is the relationship between the elements in the frame expressive and significant? Do you like it? Is the resultant image going to say what you mean?

There is only one viewpoint and perspective on display. Although I agree that you should think it out as much as possible before taking the photo it would be hard to argue that you have not presented different compositions.

[Donald]

There is only one viewpoint and perspective on display. Although I agree that you should think it out as much as possible before taking the photo it would be hard to argue that you have not presented different compositions.

What therefore is a composition?

[DanK]

There is only one viewpoint and perspective on display. Although I agree that you should think it out as much as possible before taking the photo it would be hard to argue that you have not presented different compositions.

I agree: one viewpoint, one subject, but modestly different compositions. I don't think there is much to be gained by arguing over labeling, but for what it is worth, here is the beginning of the Wikipedia entry on composition in the visual arts:

In the visual arts, composition is the placement or arrangement of visual elements or 'ingredients' in a work of art, as distinct from the subject. It can also be thought of as the organization of the elements of art according to the principles of art.

The composition of a picture is different from its subject, what is depicted, whether a moment from a story, a person or a place.

I am not much good at landscapes, but again for what it may be worth, my advice is to start by asking yourself what composition you are attempting to construct. Where is the central point of interest that you want the viewer to focus on? What elements might lead the eye to it or complement it in some way? What elements might distract the viewer from it?

[Donald]

I don't think there is much to be gained by arguing over labeling,

If we don't have a common understanding of what we mean by terms/phrases, sharing information and learning are going to become a fascinating exercises!

[Round Tuit]

What therefore is a composition?

I would say that composition is the arrangement of the elements within a frame that creates a picture. Elements can be physical (rocks, water, clouds, etc), graphic (shapes, textures, colour, contrast, light) or both. If succesfull, the composition will convey the message that the photographer wishes to express.
If we accept this definition then we have four compositions of one main subject.

Would you share your definition?

[DanK]

If we don't have a common understanding of what we mean by terms/phrases, sharing information and learning are going to become a fascinating exercises!

Agreed, in the general case. However, in this case, I thought it was clear what Daniel was asking, and I don't know that this discussion about whether his question is actually about "composition" helps answer that question. That was what I meant by my comment.

[Donald]

Would you share your definition?

I can do no better than Guy Tal, in an essay in his book, 'More than a Rock' - "Composition is the grammar of the visual language." (p105).

I find your idea that the composition can be created through finishing the cropping the picture, fascinating.

[Manfred M]

I take a slightly different view of composition than some. In my view composition is essentially how the photographer has arranged the various elements in the image and it is one of the elements that sum up how the photographer has organized the visual elements. The use of space (negative space, areas included in the image that are not contributing to the overall impact of the image, areas that have been cropped too tightly, etc.) and distracting elements (elements that distract the viewer or pull the viewer's eyes out of the frame) are thing I consider related to composition but not necessarily part of it.

The technical choices made by the photographer during capture and post processing and the visual / emotional impact that the image has on the viewer are external factors as well, in my view.

This suggests that how the image is cropped does impact the composition as it impacts the elements that are in the image that is being presented.

In my view, #1 is the strongest image as the rocks along the bottom add weight and balance to the image that #3 and #4 are lacking. Both the small piece of rock on the very left hand side of the image as well as the signatures are distracting elements. The lone rock in the water works in the first two images but ends up being a distraction in the second. The rocks in the distance need a bit of local adjustment to make them stand out a bit more and the bottom left hand corner needs to be dodged.

Unlike other members, I am less concerned about a signature or logo, BUT if you include it, it should not be a significant or distracting element in the image. In these images it acts as a very noticeable distraction because it is too noticeable.

[DanK]

I can do no better than Guy Tal, in an essay in his book, 'More than a Rock' - "Composition is the grammar of the visual language." (p105).

I find your idea that the composition can be created through finishing the cropping the picture, fascinating.

I have often gone with groups of people to photograph the same thing. We end up with different compositions. The same can be obtained after the capture.

Suppose I asked three people to photograph a fuchsia, and they produced these three images:

#1:




#2




#3.



I would wager that most people would call these three different compositions, all using a single subject. They are all in fact different captures. However, I could have produced the third image by cropping the second. (I didn't because I wanted to maximize detail.) If I had done that, would the third now not be a different composition?

[Tri Danimal]

Thank you for your comments. I think I miss spoke when I asked you all about editing and composition. I should have proof-read my post and removed out the composition term. I have added some text with the photos below to try to articulate what I was thinking when working on the edits. Please keep the constructive criticism coming.

Edit #1
I really like mood and the tone of the image, the large tufas are the POI, so I wanted to keep them on the upper two thirds line.


Edit#2
I tried to improve edit #1 by lightening the foreground tufas, but i made the whole image brighter and I dont really care for it.


Edit #3
I moved the image up to place the tufas on the lower two thirds line, this allowed more clouds (moody sky) and the removal of the foreground tufas to not be distracting.


Edit #4
From the third image I thought the extra headroom did not add anything to the photo so I removed them at the blue break in the clouds to try to keep the mood "gloomy"


I have an idea for Edit #5 & #6 that I will work on tonight
Edit #5
Take edit #3, Crop in from the right to remove the bright sand, Crop down to the break in the clouds, maybe add back in a bit of water to the foreground at the bottom. Change the to either black or dark gray to be less distracting.

Edit #6
Take Edit #1, Crop in from the right to remove the bright sand, crop in from left to remove the annoying rock I missed, Change the to either black or dark gray to be less distracting.

[Manfred M]

I think I miss spoke when I asked you all about editing and composition. I should have proof-read my post and removed out the composition term. I have added some text with the photos below to try to articulate what I was thinking when working on the edits. Please keep the constructive criticism coming.

Carefully said, when you crop you are definitely changing the composition of the image, so I believe that you were correct in your original wording. The only real "edit" I see is in #2 where you have made a global adjustment to the brightness of the image.

Unfortunately, editing is not about global adjustments, but it is about a combination of adjustments that are global, adjustments specific to "regional" areas of the image and to (many) small local areas. Dodging and burning were the traditional tools used in the past and are effectively still the "go to" tools. Ansel Adams was well known for spending hours just dodging and burning his prints.

I feel that your first image has a lot of potential. Some cloning and a bit of dodging and burning in the right places would really unlock and open up this shot.