Best Landscape pic?

evoryware

Which do you guys like the most? C & C welcome.


1.

2.

3.

Anybody know where from?

DoctorIt

florida?

that first photo is really great - colors, compo (the diagonals are really strong)

Six Bees

I like the second the best. In the first one I am distracted by the lower left corner, very dark with nothing in it...maybe a tighter crop? The last one I like, but it feels to me like the woman has no feet.
That's my two cents!

DavidTO

There is no doubt in my mind that #2 is the shot. I love the composition, and how the poles unify the two halves of the shot, tying the water and the sky together. Excellent shot.

Elaine

I like the colors of the sky, water and buildings in the first one, but the composition of the second one makes it the strongest for me. I do wish the colors had a bit more punch in it though.

Elaine

wellman

I would hang the second in my home.:D

DavidTO

Elaine wrote:

I like the colors of the sky, water and buildings in the first one, but the composition of the second one makes it the strongest for me. I do wish the colors had a bit more punch in it though.

Elaine

The second is a shot that would benefit by being run through the pop tutorial, and possibly using the Red channel for luminosity for the water.

chulium

Number 1 is beautiful. Period

LilleG

No. 2 could pop a bit more but the composition is really good. My favorite!

evoryware

Hello,


The 1st shot I didn't like till I retook it with a polarizer. I was happy with it, but I did notice the bottom was dark thanks to the setting sun. It was a nice grassy area which I thought was part of a golf course originally.
The 2nd shot (on my monitor anyway) looks exactly the way I remembered it. No polarizer. I'll definitely use the pop tutorial to play with it. It is my favorite of the three and most thought out. This was right before it started pouring.
The 3rd shot, I didn't like the missing feet myself but they were cut off by an eroding sandcastle anyway... which I probably should have dropped to a lower angle to get in the shot. The jet skier wasn't going to wait around for me though.
These were taken on my trip to Cancun last week. Recommended!

Seneca

Ok I voted on the second pic.

jay

1 is beautiful and very powerful

Scotty_R

The first and third shots honestly don't do a lot for me, but the second shot is excellent in every way. The contrast between the ominous sky and the quiet green water gives the shot tension and the pier leads the eye straight into the middle of the shot and holds my attention.

The "pop" issue that others have mentioned doesn't bother me at all. I'm something of a realist when it comes to photography--I want the shot to resemble what the photographer actually saw without a lot of artificial post processing to make it something that it wasn't.

Well done.

Dixie

Scotty_R wrote:

.... The "pop" issue that others have mentioned doesn't bother me at all. I'm something of a realist when it comes to photography--I want the shot to resemble what the photographer actually saw without a lot of artificial post processing to make it something that it wasn't. ....

Scotty, I respectfully disagree with your comment.

Since the human eye "sees" about 11 f-stops, RAW about 8 f-stops, and JPG about 5 f-stops it is rare that the camera "sees" what the photographer "sees." Evoryware's Photo 1 is a good example of this. The total f-stop range of the scene is without a doubt beyond the 5 f-stop capability that the JPG format that he is using for his presentation can handle.

The only way to compensate for this is through "post processing" to bring the f-stop range to within the f-stop range the JPG format is capable of displaying.

The human eye in conjunction with the human mind has the awesome ability to take in a scene and made the necessary adjustments so the photographer can "see" detail in both the brightly lit areas as well as the shadowed areas which a camera does not "see" even with a properly exposed photograph.

That is where "post processing" comes in. I will venture to guess that the scene as depicted in the attachment below is closer to what Evoryware actually "saw" in real life as opposed to the rendering done in his image above due to the human eye & mind's uncanny ability to "post process." I will have found heaven on earth the day a camera manufacturer produces a camera with the same abilities.

To bring the scene in the attachment to within the 5 f-stop capability of the JPG format, I worked two layers. The bottom layer was adjusted for the dark foreground area. The top layer was adjusted for the bright area containing the sky and brightly lit buildings. I used an eraser set for 50% flow and 50% opacity and selectively erased the shadowed area of the top layer letting the layer below which was adjusted for the shadowed area show through. The two layers were then merged giving me an image which effectively reduced the f-stop range of the original scene into a final image which falls within the 5 f-stop range that the JPG format can handle.

Scotty, please don't take offense as this is just one photographer's view of the world as he "sees" it looking through a viewfinder. In closing I would like to say that there are those photographers such as crime scene photographers, medical photographers, photojournalist, etc. who by the nature of their work have to practice the Science of Photography where color accuracy and scale are paramount in regards to the finished product. I, for one, practice the Art of Photography where the finished product is in what I envisioned and not necessarily that which I "saw." ...but if it is something that I envisioned, is it not also something which I "saw?"

Evoryware: If I overstepped in using your photo to illustrate what I was saying please let me know and I will remove the attachment.

I really like the composition in Photo 2.

GraphyFotoz

I like #2 for the compo and the simplicity speaks volumes...DOF is super.

#1 is a lil to busy for my liking.

#3 Only has one thing going for it and I won't elaborate on that!

JESTER

I'll put my 2 cents in for #2. Maybe if you cropped #1 a little tighter and got rid of the grassy area. #3 just doesn't do anything for me.

evoryware

Dixie wrote:

Evoryware: If I overstepped in using your photo to illustrate what I was saying please let me know and I will remove the attachment.

I really like the composition in Photo 2.

To me these forums are for learning and debating so I don't have a problem with what you did (besides I like it).

Thanks for the concern though!