The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
When using a tripod as a landscape photographer there is a danger that the composition becomes too labored, that is, too analytical and stifled. If an image appears to be more analytical than experienced, I tend to lose interest. One obvious alternative is to handhold the camera, enabling one to move swiftly through the landscape and use the camera more intuitively, thereby tracking the actual experience of the fleeting light and shadow in the landscape. The challenge with cameras like Nikon D850 is that their sensors are so precise and fine-grained that camera shake is easily introduced. One solution is to use fast primes, crank up the ISO, increase aperture, and reduce shutter speed. The present image was an effort to use my Nikon D850 as a point-and-shoot camera, hand-held, enabling me to keep up with the quickly moving shadow in a valley and the compositional opportunities that it offered, such as the silhouetted trees in the foreground.
Specific Feedback
How does the shadow at the bottom work? The image is slightly cropped, and I could include more shadow at the bottom, but then the snap effect would diminish. Besides, the forced perspective (narrow band of shadow at the bottom vs broad band of flat rock surface in the background) would diminish too.
Technical Details
Camera: Nikon D850
Lens: Sigma 35 mm
Capture: 1/1250 sec. at f1.4, ISO 500
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Leo, I can relate to your gear observation posted in the photo description section. I am actually moving my technique (and gear selection) in the same direction for the reasons you state: to make my photographic efforts more fluid and less cumbersome. At my age, lighter and easier to carry (including leaving the tripod in the car) is an increasingly appreciated benefit, as is faster/lighter prime lenses and image stabilization.
On to the photo, I think the narrow band of shadow works as-is, including any more would IMO feel too heavy. However I do wonder if lightening it to reveal a bit more detail would be beneficial.
Hi @Leo_Catana, You have shared an image of a complex and interesting set of rock structures shown as a broad and distant mountain-side above a band of scrubby trees and boulders. It gives the eye plenty of detail to explore before eventually coming down to the fairly straight and uneventful shadow line at the bottom of the frame. The shadow is a bit heavy but close examination doesn’t show much detail being obscured. For me, the image isn’t a great example for your premise. Instead of calling for quick work, it almost demands closer examination, a tighter pano focusing on bands of rock textures and trees and rubble would give the eye more to work with while avoiding the rather nondescript sky.
Where the form or placement of shadows play a role in the composition they are quite vital, but for me, this is not an example of that.
The tripod yes or no argument has been raging for some time now. While I agree with the goals of reducing the weight of one’s kit to enhance mobility, hiking range etc. for me, the tripod is, next to the camera and one lens, the most critical element of landscape photography practice. I feel that with good practice and technique nothing in the landscape moves so fast (or unpredictably) that they cannot be photographed better from a tripod. And while the corners of your Sigma at f1.4 are quite good, for the sharpness and depth generally sought for a landscape image you likely will generally be happier with the result shooting at f5.6 or f8 especially if the image will be printed large.
Tripod vs. no tripod is a great conversation to have, but would probably be better in Discussions. If anyone is interested in digging deeper into this, feel free to get a conversation going there.
That’s a bold rock for sure, and I like the way the foreground leads to it. The trees give the image perspective, and that’s helpful.
Personal preference is definitely at play here, but I’d be tempted to increase the contrast in the sky so that the rock jumps out a bit more. I also wish there were more clouds in the upper left, but fully realize that’s not a choice the photographer gets to make.
I’m not sold on the bottom shadow. I’ve been scanning ancient family photos into digital format, and the shadow reminds me of some of the marginal discoloration that those old photos have. I’d be tempted to remove it.
I like the way the clouds flare out like that. The mountain itself has heroic look to it. I agree that the sky is a bit too close in tonal value to the land but if you make it lighter the clouds lose some of their shape.
Since the poster brought up the tripod issue here i feel it’s appropriate to answer. I agree with Guy on his thoughts. Tripods aren’t used in photojournalism because you’re capturing movement. But the land doesn’t move. I suppose there’s movement when the wind is blowing. The biggest benefit with a tripod is careful and thoughtful composition. Most everyone agrees that a key to good landscape imagery is to slow down. A tripod forces you to do just that.
Yes, the bottom shadow is an issue. More so because the background is black which gives the appearance of a trapezoid frame.
@guy , thank you for taking out time to comment. Your tighter pano opens up a new and interesting possibility that I had not thought of, so thanks. I fully understand your point in regard to tripod, and I guess that comes down to subjective preferences. My intention was not to reject the idea of using a tripod at all — that would be a bad suggestions for obvious reasons, but primarily to give an example of a supplementary approach that may work in some situations.
