Colorful Canyon

anwmn1

Feedback and Critiques Appreciated

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

Stumblebum

All very lovely! Nice portraits of beautiful canyon!

Sam

This is a personal view.

I don't see the world about me, landscapes, vertically. I see the world in a horizontal, landscape orientation.

Hence a landscape presented in a vertical orientation looks, to me, like it lacks something. It looks like a cut out or piece of what the scene really would look like.

Just me,

Sam

kdog

Awesome location with great skies, Aaron. It would be nice to see a wider view of the area.

roaddog52

Great shots all. For me the vertical layout works just fine in these shots. The orientation works well, from front to back giving us a sense of distance through the canyon. The B&W is a bonus. Well done.thumb

anwmn1

Stumblebum wrote: »

All very lovely! Nice portraits of beautiful canyon!

Thanks for the comments.

Cornflake

These are very well done, Aaron. The first is the best, in my view, and I don't see how you could do better with that one. I like the fourth and fifth very much but I don't think the clouds in either are optimal, particularly in the fifth one. Mostly, though, I'm just enjoying them.

anwmn1

Sam wrote: »

This is a personal view.

I don't see the world about me, landscapes, vertically. I see the world in a horizontal, landscape orientation.

Hence a landscape presented in a vertical orientation looks, to me, like it lacks something. It looks like a cut out or piece of what the scene really would look like.

Just me,

Sam

Sam- thanks for taking the time to comment. Seeing the world only in landscape orientation is a pretty narrow view, no?

While your logic works in larger open scenes, shooting in landscape orientation often cuts off areas below and above (which your eyes can naturally see) versus to the left and right. When I work a scene I shoot in both landscape and portrait orientation, often changing lenses, and even shooting potential panos. When I start editing the images I try to see which images show the scene in its best light. While there are areas of this canyon that do lend themselves to landscape orientation shots (and I have some in that orientation), in this series the only section that does is image three. I already have wider views of this area so that shot is actually a compressed image using a 70-200 lens.

The other images are actually in pretty narrow sections and were shot to show the depth of the canyon, its layers, and capture as much of the sky as possible (as it is rare to have skies like this in AZ). Shooting a landscape orientation shot would cut off both the depth of the canyon and the sky, yet offering very little of interest to the left or right of what you see in these shots. A 3 shot pano could potentially work but that provide closer to a square aspect ratio, which I feel rarely works in landscape images.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

anwmn1

kdog wrote: »

Awesome location with great skies, Aaron. It would be nice to see a wider view of the area.

Thanks Joel. I have a few wider views from areas of the canyon that work with that orientation. You have been to a different part of this canyon so you might remember how limiting certain channels are to shoot.

roaddog52 wrote: »

Great shots all. For me the vertical layout works just fine in these shots. The orientation works well, from front to back giving us a sense of distance through the canyon. The B&W is a bonus. Well done.thumb

Thanks. I appreciate the comments and yes, I feel this orientation works the best for these sections of the canyon.

anwmn1

Cornflake wrote: »

These are very well done, Aaron. The first is the best, in my view, and I don't see how you could do better with that one. I like the fourth and fifth very much but I don't think the clouds in either are optimal, particularly in the fifth one. Mostly, though, I'm just enjoying them.

Don- thanks for the feedback. Can you elaborate on the clouds?

Cornflake

Aaron, I'll try, but I don't do well with clouds and I don't know anything, so take it with a grain of salt. Or several. In the fourth, there's not much detail in the farthest clouds or in some of the nearest ones. Portions look blown out, although I suspect they aren't. And they're very attention grabbing, so I quickly stopped looking at the canyon and started looking at the clouds. In the fifth, I get some of the same reaction to some of the clouds in the middle, but mostly I don't think the band of clouds at the top do you any compositional favors. The tones are fine in those but they kind of wall in and squash the composition by my lights. And the sky has a lot of contrast so, again, it's an eye magnet, and I found myself looking away from the wonderful canyon and at a sky that isn't nearly as wonderful. FWIW. I don't like being a critic but that's what I would say to myself if they were mine.

PS: PM coming.

anonymouscuban

Aaron,

I actually like all of them. I personally think #3 is the strongest because of the strong foreground, mid and background. There are distinct focal points in each that my eye is drawn to. And I like the vertical comps but I tend to shoot a lot of landscapes this way so I'm biased.

I think the problem with vertical comps is that they don't translate real well on a puter screen. You're forced to post smaller photos vertically. Also, people aren't used to seeing landscape photos shot this way so there is that. I often find that vertical composition actually flow and work better than horizontal. At least for me. There is more fluidity in the comp to me, because my eye travels from the foreground to the far distances of the background and everywhere in between.

Jeffro

Overall, I like them. Sometimes going vertical gets you more than going horizontal. Sometimes I try both at the same location.

anwmn1

Cornflake wrote: »

Aaron, I'll try, but I don't do well with clouds and I don't know anything, so take it with a grain of salt. Or several. In the fourth, there's not much detail in the farthest clouds or in some of the nearest ones. Portions look blown out, although I suspect they aren't. And they're very attention grabbing, so I quickly stopped looking at the canyon and started looking at the clouds. In the fifth, I get some of the same reaction to some of the clouds in the middle, but mostly I don't think the band of clouds at the top do you any compositional favors. The tones are fine in those but they kind of wall in and squash the composition by my lights. And the sky has a lot of contrast so, again, it's an eye magnet, and I found myself looking away from the wonderful canyon and at a sky that isn't nearly as wonderful. FWIW. I don't like being a critic but that's what I would say to myself if they were mine.

PS: PM coming.

Don- this is a good critique. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

anwmn1

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Aaron,

I actually like all of them. I personally think #3 is the strongest because of the strong foreground, mid and background. There are distinct focal points in each that my eye is drawn to. And I like the vertical comps but I tend to shoot a lot of landscapes this way so I'm biased.

I think the problem with vertical comps is that they don't translate real well on a puter screen. You're forced to post smaller photos vertically. Also, people aren't used to seeing landscape photos shot this way so there is that. I often find that vertical composition actually flow and work better than horizontal. At least for me. There is more fluidity in the comp to me, because my eye travels from the foreground to the far distances of the background and everywhere in between.

Alex- thank you for the comments. Eye movement through the scene is indeed important so it pleases me that you find that in #3.

As mentioned above I shoot in both orientations and then pick which works the best for the scene. In narrow canyons I find that the vertical orientation works best. All professional landscape photographers have a good percentage of vertical orientated shots, even in wider scenes than this.