Scottish Highlands
Mar 31, 2016 23:12:02 #
Mar 31, 2016 23:23:10 #
Mar 31, 2016 23:27:20 #
Beautiful shot! So crisp and clear. I'm partial to such landscapes. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Do you know why the rocks are stacked like that across the field?
Do you know why the rocks are stacked like that across the field?
Apr 1, 2016 01:33:15 #
CathyAnn wrote:
Beautiful shot! So crisp and clear. I'm partial to such landscapes. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Do you know why the rocks are stacked like that across the field?
Do you know why the rocks are stacked like that across the field?
All that means is that it is a frequently visited tourist area with a lot of stackable rocks. On some scenic highways in northern Canada we see them at every rest area. In Newfoundland we see them at every rocky tourist lookout. I even saw them spoiling the natural view at a beautiful park in Iceland. They spoil a lot of landscapes.
Apr 1, 2016 06:05:02 #
You might want to change your perspective by moving the horizon up and down and cropping accordingly. And work the distant mountains accordingly. I think this shot has a lot of unrecognized potential.
Apr 1, 2016 08:10:49 #
For me the foreground details are too small to have them be such a large part of the composition. I have mixed feelings about the stacks also - kind of detracts from the fantastic view.
Apr 1, 2016 08:34:54 #
St3v3M wrote:
It's a beautiful view, but I'm curious why there are so many cairns. S-
Originally, Cairns were used as trail markers, and way back I believe they were used to mark graves. There are different kinds and different ways (varying architecture) to build them. On this hillside, I honestly don't know why there are so many stacked. My guess is that they were merely put there by tourists which seems to be a 'fad' or decorative addition to the hillside. I have seen them in the US at various places, one being on one of the shorelines of Mackinaw Island in Michigan. Someone else mentioned they have seen some as well. I have also read where it is in poor taste to knock them down and destroy their form/structure. Also, some have said they are just a nuisance.
I merely thought it was an interesting and contrasting shot with those in the foreground and the highlands showing across the Loch. I also liked the cloudiness/gloominess of the sky portraying very common weather seen in Scotland. Thank you for your comments.
Best Regards,
Tom
Apr 1, 2016 08:41:36 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
For me the foreground details are too small to have them be such a large part of the composition. I have mixed feelings about the stacks also - kind of detracts from the fantastic view.
Linda,
I was wondering about the 1/3 . . . 2/3 rule for this image. I believe I have it fairly accurate with the Cairns and the hill slope as 2/3 and the distant highlands/Loch and clouds as 1/3. Yes or no? I thought it was a pretty good meld of all the various aspects or 'parts' of the image. There is actually more there to look at that initially meets the eye. Then again, I have been wrong many, many, many times before! Thanks Linda for your comments.
Best Regards,
Tom
Apr 1, 2016 08:44:21 #
abc1234 wrote:
You might want to change your perspective by moving the horizon up and down and cropping accordingly. And work the distant mountains accordingly. I think this shot has a lot of unrecognized potential.
abc1234,
I'm not sure I know exactly what you are meaning. Please feel free to make your changes and upload with the download box checked, if you would. Thank you and I am always looking for different perspectives. :-)
Tom
Apr 1, 2016 08:46:50 #
CathyAnn wrote:
Beautiful shot! So crisp and clear. I'm partial to such landscapes. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Do you know why the rocks are stacked like that across the field?
Do you know why the rocks are stacked like that across the field?
CathyAnn,
I believe I answered your question in my initial response to St3v3M. Thanks for your kind comments.
Tom
Apr 1, 2016 09:00:43 #
trc wrote:
Linda,
I was wondering about the 1/3 . . . 2/3 rule for this image. I believe I have it fairly accurate with the Cairns and the hill slope as 2/3 and the distant highlands/Loch and clouds as 1/3. Yes or no? I thought it was a pretty good meld of all the various aspects or 'parts' of the image. There is actually more there to look at that initially meets the eye. Then again, I have been wrong many, many, many times before! Thanks Linda for your comments.
Best Regards,
Tom
I was wondering about the 1/3 . . . 2/3 rule for this image. I believe I have it fairly accurate with the Cairns and the hill slope as 2/3 and the distant highlands/Loch and clouds as 1/3. Yes or no? I thought it was a pretty good meld of all the various aspects or 'parts' of the image. There is actually more there to look at that initially meets the eye. Then again, I have been wrong many, many, many times before! Thanks Linda for your comments.
Best Regards,
Tom
This is great for discussion of rules vs. what looks right in the moment - or what you want to convey in your image!
Cutting a photo in half by having horizon line right in the middle is often cited as a no-no, but I bet there are plenty of exceptions. And often cited as a desirable aspect of landscape photos is to see a foreground, middle ground, and background (the thirds or thereabouts).
With your photo, my personal feeling was the rocks aren't as interesting to me as the rest. It could be partly because there are so many and they are so small.
Their man-made placement definitely contrasts against the wild landscape - and that could be compelling to many viewers. Again, what I've written is all just personal opinion and has nothing to do with right or wrong :)
I do love the expansive view and the moody weather!
Different crop = a different story?
Apr 1, 2016 09:43:21 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
...
Cutting a photo in half by having horizon line right in the middle is often cited as a no-no, but I bet there are plenty of exceptions. And often cited as a desirable aspect of landscape photos is to see a foreground, middle ground, and background (the thirds or thereabouts).
...
Cutting a photo in half by having horizon line right in the middle is often cited as a no-no, but I bet there are plenty of exceptions. And often cited as a desirable aspect of landscape photos is to see a foreground, middle ground, and background (the thirds or thereabouts).
...
It's amazing what a crop can do. S-
Apr 1, 2016 09:52:15 #
trc wrote:
Linda,
I was wondering about the 1/3 . . . 2/3 rule for this image. I believe I have it fairly accurate with the Cairns and the hill slope as 2/3 and the distant highlands/Loch and clouds as 1/3. Yes or no? I thought it was a pretty good meld of all the various aspects or 'parts' of the image. There is actually more there to look at that initially meets the eye. Then again, I have been wrong many, many, many times before! Thanks Linda for your comments.
Best Regards,
Tom
I was wondering about the 1/3 . . . 2/3 rule for this image. I believe I have it fairly accurate with the Cairns and the hill slope as 2/3 and the distant highlands/Loch and clouds as 1/3. Yes or no? I thought it was a pretty good meld of all the various aspects or 'parts' of the image. There is actually more there to look at that initially meets the eye. Then again, I have been wrong many, many, many times before! Thanks Linda for your comments.
Best Regards,
Tom
Rules are made to be broken. And as is often the case, the jpg's look better on my pc than here. Can anyone help me with that?
This would have been ideal for a panorama. I often take the extra pictures even if I do not have my tripod. Then, I have the option to use them or not later.
Apr 1, 2016 10:45:58 #
abc1234 wrote:
... And as is often the case, the jpg's look better on my pc than here. Can anyone help me with that...
On UHH images are re-sized to 600 px wide on the thumbnail. The larger you upload, the more likely the compressed version will not look as good. Also be sure to save as srgb color space.
Also many of us have noticed that the photos look a little darker on UHH, and Minnie has pointed out that the mustard colored background is not flattering to many images :)
Apr 1, 2016 10:53:23 #
Frank2013
Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.
trc wrote:
Easier to show than explain since it appears to be ok to edit your shot.Thoughts?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.