(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
Both shots are 2 exposures, one for the land, and one for the sky and then blended. f 11 iso 64 1/50 sec. The first one is at 16mm with a polarizer. I switched to a 20mm prime for the second, but don’t have a polarizer for that lens, so the reflections were a bit harder to manage. I did some basic contrast, dodge and burning, then did a little soft light painting in the distance to bring up the waterfall and to emphasize the sunset. In the first image i cant decide if the tree line in the ULC is too much of a distraction, but I do think the polarizer benefits the scene overall.
If you would like your image to be eligible for a feature on the NPN Instagram (@NaturePhotoNet), add the tag ‘ig’ and leave your Instagram username below.
You may only download this image to demonstrate post-processing techniques.
I like the composition on the horizontal image more, Hermann. But the image is slightly crooked and has some kind of barrel distortion on it. I think it should be pretty easy to fix. I really like the use of the foreground and how it is really leading the viewers into the image.
I want to go to there. Thanks for transporting me.
I like both, but if forced to pick I like the horizontal best of the two. Yeah, it would be nice if those trees in the ULC weren’t bridging the border and the ridge, and it would be nice if the ridge in the URC went all the way to the top (to match/mirror the left; which you could do with some stretching i.e. Puppet Warp in PS if that matches your goals/ethics), but honestly I didn’t notice either of those things until I read your comment about the trees. Overall the upper image in particular has really nice impact.
Both images have some wide angle distortion in the corners, such that type of lens. I like the vertical image better as the ridge on the left is not cut off like it is in the horizontal frame. I think you should be able to burn down the reflection in the vertical image as they tones there do seem to be blown out. These near-far compositions are hard to pull off especially if there is no continuation in the middle ground.
As in Marylynne’s recent water picture I’m starting to have a different opinion about these type of composition. I’m looking at the foreground in contrast to the rest of the image as opposed to being part of it. This vs that. Because it looks unnatural you can make a statement in this manner. Sometimes it’s an artistic statement. Still working it in my mind though.
I would crop the top one as a square. The vertical lacks space on the sides. What I like about it is how the ‘skeleton’ comes out of the dark. If you remove the dark, as in the vertical, part of the message is lost.
Hermann, I prefer the horizontal, but with the changes suggested by @Igor_Doncov. I think Igors square rework simplifies things by removing secondary elements like the rock and grass. And to me the square crop places more emphasis on the mid-ground grasses, which sort of is related to @Youssef_Ismail point about needing a good midground in these near/far comps. In Igors rework, i would also clone away the small clump of dark grass at the right frame edge.
And I would buy a polarizer for your other lens, it clearly helps here.
@Igor_Doncov I like what you did there. I hadn’t thought of a crop, but it definitely simplifies the elements and what the image is about. Thanks for taking the time to comment! And @Ed_McGuirk the polarizer has just been purchased!
I’m with those who prefer the horizontal. And Igor’s comment about the sides lacking space in the vertical was my first thought as well. Igor’s square crop is a valid and quite terrific alternative I like very much.
The weathered wood is awesome and I think just showcased nicely in the horizontal and/or square crop. It anchors the grander landscape quite nicely. No other nits or suggestions.
Alert: this is a fanatic minority opinion. I’m a self professed foreground nut, ie, I hate many foregrounds that many people love. Many years ago David Muench popularized putting a narly piece of wood in the foreground, and around the same time it became gospel that you have to have a big object in the foreground for every photo. IMO opinion, which admittedly is a minority opinion, this photo doesn’t work for the reason it often doesn’t work: it creates two photos, one of the foreground, and the other of the background. For me, a big object in the foreground should be really important for “what’s the photo about”, and ideally it should draw the viewer in and the eye should naturally flow through or over it towards the background. In this case it sort of points the way, but not enough to overcome the experience that it is a big object blocking the way to the background. It also muddles the question, “what is this photo about?” Is it about the piece of wood, or the river valley flowing towards the mountain? I think the more compelling of the two is the river valley. End of rant.
@Tony_Siciliano why can’t the story be about a piece of wood in a river valley? Don’t river valleys have various items in them? Rocks, grasses, trees, etc.
I’m a fan of simple is better a lot of the time, but I also find interest in the complexity of nature and art. Sometimes my eye wonders around a grand landscape from the foreground to background, from trees, to twigs and back. A lot of the time I aim to present a scene as if the viewer was standing there themselves, their eyes wandering around the landscape they are standing in, sure that is a simplistic goal, but it also harkens back to the early landscape photography mentality. In this case the light was pretty simple, the peaks were illuminated by afternoon light, and reflected back into the water, as I sat by the lake and looked at this old tree it directed me to the reflection in the lake and then to the peaks it was reflecting.
