I was making my way to Owanka, South Dakota, via the back roads, when I came across this photo. I love these wide open spaces.
If you look closely, you can see Owanka close to the middle of the photo.
Specific Feedback Requested
I know that this photo is split 50-50 between land and sky, breaking the rule of thirds. I wanted this photo to express the big open spaces that you experience in the high prairie. A feeling that is so often lost in photos. I simply couldn’t come up with a ‘rules of thirds’ composition that worked for me. The print that you see has a sliver of the top and left side cropped. The sky at the top was a distraction. The left because I didn’t want to loose the fence and I wanted to keep the ratio.
I’ll apologize up front for the quality of this photo. I’m not sure why, but I wasn’t able to upload my 24x16 (4,362 kb) jpeg file. My theory is that my internet speed is too slow and it times out. To upload, I had to reduce the photo to 12x8. The result is that the file uploaded has grain, haloing and other artifacts that aren’t in my larger photo or in the print that I have hanging.
I would like your thoughts on the composition I decided on. I did clone out road signs, man made objects along the skyline and a few distracting buildings. Should I have cloned out the fence, road and telephone poles as well? I decided to leave them because I felt it was part of the story the photo is telling. What story is the photo conveying to you and how would the story change without the fence, etc.?
I also would like your thoughts about the contrast. In the sky, ground and between the sky and ground. There is a fair amount of dodge and burn in this photo. I found that burning the brightest of the clouds brought out hidden details.
I’m open to all CC. Please let me know your thoughts.
Technical Details
Canon 5DS R | EF 17-40 | f11 | 1/250 | ISO 100 | 40mm
PP using ACR and Photoshop
For me, the clouds overpower the ground, taking away the idea you wanted to convey of wide open spaces. I’ll admit I’m not a fan of high contrast, but in this case it feels (to me) that it breaks up the vastness even more. What strikes me as most interesting is that it looks like there is a double tornado on the horizon!
David,
Excellent image depicting the “wide open spaces” that you mention. this certainly captures and portrays that sense of the open prairie.
I think your composition is appropriate - and you’re right everthing doesn’t have to fall in some bucket of guidelines. I’m a big advocate of the “rule of thirds,” but that doesn’t mean everything has to follow that - and so I’m glad you’ve composed this the way you did. the sky warrants the attention, as does the landscape.
The landscape part of the composition is terrific. I fence, and the lead-in line of the road - and the power lines as well, work wonderfully here. And the dappled light across the landscape is also working nicely.
To the sky - I’m in agreement with Diane. Even before reading her comments, I too thought the sky/clouds were pretty heavy in the contrast department. Love the squall and the story and impact it brings to the open prairie… But IMO, just a little too heavy handed.
I’m sure this is amazing in print though. And speaking of sizes and uploading. I don’t know your workflow, but I’m wondering if you have a print workflow that is different than a workflow for the web? I haven’t printed anything in a number of years… but when I’m developing images, I do a separate file (from a master) for printing - sharpening techniques are different, etc. - than I do for creating images just for the web. Anyway, maybe you’re doing that, but since you referenced the “sizes” of the image in reference to print sizes… well, that made me bring this up.
B&W is a great choice for this scene and image. I think some tweaks and this will be awesome!
Lon
Unlike the platform in the previous seaside scene the fence on the right improves the scene and should be left as is. The 50-50 composition is not an issue because the demarcation is not very prominent. It’s not prominent because the composition above and below are really similar in tonality and in a way merge together. It’s a high contrast image and therefore I see no reason to make one part have less contrast than the other. If the sky is to be changed it would be only the darkest parts of the darkest clouds. The bright clouds should remain as is in my opinion. It’s a highly charged image. I actually like those telephone poles receding into the distance.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I’m learning and it means a lot to get constructive feedback.
I have looked at the sky and posted two images.
The first I adjusted the curves layer that lighted the darkest of the clouds. I think this image is addressing your comments. Please let me know if I’m on track.
In the second photo I turned off the layers that darkened the brightest of the clouds. If you compare the two you will see that there was a lot of detail hidden in the brightest parts of the clouds.
In terms of workflow, I trying to figure all of the that out. I enrolled in a course that touched on printing and I have viewed a few YouTube videos. I would appreciate any guides you can provide.
1 Like
This is the second image I reference in my previous post.
1 Like
David, your repost works nicely. It’s a minor tweak that adds a bit more “realism” to the clouds. Well done.
1 Like
