Three Different Compositions of same scene: Here are three images of a scene in Utah of a horse in a field. Curious as to your opinions on which strikes your respective fancies.

greymule Loc: Colorado

Here are three images of a scene in Utah of a horse in a field.

Curious as to your opinions on which strikes your respective fancies.

Dumb Model turned away as I was clicking

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

greymule wrote:

Here are three images of a scene in Utah of a horse in a field.

Curious as to your opinions on which strikes your respective fancies.

2

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

The second one is a more balanced picture in my estimation. For some reason the first two have a lot of noise the sky, which I have seen in some of your other photos. You might want to try experimenting with some of the different setting on your camera, to see if you can eliminate the noise.

Mike

greymule Loc: Colorado

renomike wrote:

The second one is a more balanced picture in my estimation. For some reason the first two have a lot of noise the sky, which I have seen in some of your other photos. You might want to try experimenting with some of the different setting on your camera, to see if you can eliminate the noise.

Mike

What settings might be causing the noise?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I'm guessing you shot in aperture priority; at f/9.

Right?

I'm also guessing that these shots were taken pretty much one right after the other...right?

They seem to vary a bit in exposure...I think I know why but I want to verify what I guessed above first.

greymule Loc: Colorado

rpavich wrote:

I'm guessing you shot in aperture priority; at f/9.

Right?

I'm also guessing that these shots were taken pretty much one right after the other...right?

They seem to vary a bit in exposure...I think I know why but I want to verify what I guessed above first.

Yep. Dead on your guesses. The Great Carnac?

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

greymule, this should have been in a different forum, not photo analysis.

greymule Loc: Colorado

[quote=English_Wolf][b]greymule[b], this should have been in a different forum, not photo analysis.[/quote]

Sorry, Wolfman. I was hoping to get comments on composition, but I see what you mean. Thank you.

photogrl57 Loc: Tennessee

I like the first one much better .. love the details in the fence .. plus it shows the farm buildings ... much better photo overall .

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

greymule wrote:

rpavich wrote:

I'm guessing you shot in aperture priority; at f/9.

Right?

I'm also guessing that these shots were taken pretty much one right after the other...right?

They seem to vary a bit in exposure...I think I know why but I want to verify what I guessed above first.

Yep. Dead on your guesses. The Great Carnac?

Lol...nope....not even Ed McMahon. :)

I just noticed that the camera saw each of these scenes as different exposure values, and adjusted the shutter speed and therefore the overall exposure differently on each one.

People ask "Why shoot manual?" and this is a great example of why to do that...the light didn't change on this scene (you knew it...but your camera didn't. Everytime you reframed it decided that the amount of light was different because of the tones ability to reflect light changed.

And the next poster after me mentioned that #1 should be brightened... :)

If you want consistency then you have to shoot manual....that's all. (and having an incident meter would allow you (in this situation) to have had a perfect exposure)

They are spectacular shots....don't get me wrong...I was just going off on a tangent...they are great and the colors are awesome.

colo43 Loc: Eastern Plains of Colorado

#1 but it needs to be brightened a tad .

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

greymule wrote:

.../... horse in a field .../...

While many of the photographs you have presented in UHH are good, this series is a total miss if the horse is main subject as you seem to imply.

Why?

You fell onto what I call 'The tourist trap'. What I mean by that is that you forgot to be a photographer. You let your eyes fool you onto having a good picture when instead you get a speck on a field. The speck? The horse. Our eyes are selective and do not see the way a camera does. In this case, they behaved like zooms, the camera did not.

I took the liberty do adjust two things: horizontal alignment then cropped 'panorama like' onto the farm, keeping the horse in. This adds an interesting detail, other than visual: The rancher likes or collects older pickups and renovates them...

greymule Loc: Colorado

English_Wolf wrote:

quote=greymule .../... horse in a field .../... /... (show quote)

The horse wasn't what intrigued me. It was the pattern of the fences. The horse was a nice addition for me, even as a speck. I could sense when I captured the image, it didn't capture what I wanted.

In hindsight, I would have been better off shooting a short vertical panorama at maybe 130mm. That way, the fences would be more compressed, emphasizing what I intended to capture, as well as "de-specking" the horse.

Any thoughts on my hindsight?

I appreciate you taking the time to help me.

Rick

English_Wolf Loc: Near Pensacola, FL

A panorama shot at 130mmm would have offered more detail, that is correct but.... The pattern would have been greatly enhanced if your point of view had been lower, compressing everything as you said.

Learn to crouch or even lie on your belly!!! (and damn the cow pies)
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2012/3/7/1331157281418-nothing.png

greymule Loc: Colorado

English_Wolf wrote:

A panorama shot at 130mmm would have offered more detail, that is correct but.... The pattern would have been greatly enhanced if your point of view would have been lower, compressing everything as you said.

Learn to crouch or even lie on your belly!!!
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2012/3/7/1331157281418-nothing.png

Good call. The scene was down below the road. I realize now that I should have climbed down to perhaps just above the line of sight of the first fence. I must have thought the downward shooting angle was enough. Not.

Oh well, that's why I need the excellent input of this forum.

Thanks again, Wolfie, for taking the time to help me.