Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

In our recent visit to the Sierras, I did get an opportunity to photograph some beautiful scenery. My favorite scenes to view are those with both mountains and inland water, whether it is a small lake or a stream. Fortunately, we hiked to such a spot.

These two shots are of the same lake. We were pretty sure this was Little Bear Lake, though it might have been Big Bear Lake. (The signs along the trails could be more informative.) The two shots have different viewing perspectives, but the actual camera locations were a lot closer than one might think.

In the first one, I wanted Duke, the chocolate lab, in the picture. (I don't think I've ever encountered a dog who enjoys just being a dog, more than Duke does. Duke belongs to our hosts. Many people have stated that, when they die, they want to come back as a dog belonging to our hosts.) I also wanted the fallen log, in the foreground, to be in the frame. Some may say that the log is too prominent in the frame, but I like it, that way. To me, it seems to make the lake smaller and more intimate, as if you could walk across the lake, right there.

The second photo has no such prominent object in the foreground, though it does have a bit of the shore, along the bottom. I think the presence of the shore makes the lake look smaller and more intimate, though probably not as much as the first photo.

Both photos have nearly the same post processing treatment, including color grading. I included also the faintest hint of glow. In a photo that features a calm lake, I tend to prefer a less bright treatment. To me, that seems more serene.

(Download)


(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

You explained your viewpoint about #1 very well, but I still prefer #2 The dark foreground, with rippled water is a super contrast against brighter distance.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

If you're looking for comments, I'll take number one. Something in the foreground always.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I prefer the first photo, simply because there’s more to see, dog or no dog. To me, the second one would be more pleasing (though it’s nice as it is) if some of the bottom were cropped off.

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

For me the both of them are well done. If you put a gun to my head and I had to choose, I would go with #1. I like the log and foreground setting, and thought I would enjoy hanging out in that spot. Too bad you didn't have a person sitting on the log enjoying the scene and the dog. I think that would be a plus.

ediesaul

Top photo:
I think that the dog and the log distract from the landscape. So, it depends what you want the subject to be. If you wanted to show how much the dog enjoys being in the water and "being a dog," I don't think the photo depicts that goal.

Bottom photo:
If you wanted to show the mountains and the landscape, then I think that, compositionally, you've done that.

Both photos:
For my taste, I think that both photos are a bit over-processed.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

#2.

Has to do with interesting eye movement created by negative and positive space. My eye naturally follows the natural path the features create in the composition... #1 is more static, where #2 has a more definite path and a "frame". The photo could be improved- ie, opening up detail in shadows and toning down harsh highlights. But from pure composition- it does more of what a good landscape photo should.

Analyze what your eye does when you first open it, you start from bottom right and follow the foreground shore, the point shoots you over to the opposite shore then you follow that shore off to the far mountain- scanning that, then to the large tree in top left- where if you are like me, you follow down where you start over again. I can feel the sense of space this creates and that one would get if standing there.

The masters purposefully created eye movement in their compositions, they manipulated where your eye went, intentionally designed to hold your gaze. Not saying this is a masterpiece- least not yet :) But it does have the elements I try and look for in my preferred wide angle landscapes, where you feel you could stick your head into the frame and look around, as opposed to the compressed depth of telephoto lenses..

For what my 2 cents are worth.

Oh yeah #1 is crooked- which I tend to naturally do if not careful. I hate that!! LOL :)

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I vote for #1. It is a tad busy, and I normally don't like busy. But the log (and the dog) are beautiful and inviting. The dog lets me know that people are likely present, so it is accessible. I also think the colours are a bit better in the first one - probably due to a slight change of direction from the sun. The second one is nice, but just not as interesting as the first one. (And, by the way, it looks a tad crooked to me also, but that may be my astigmatism.)

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

I appreciate all of your comments, and I thank each of you for helping me improve. This is exactly why FYC is my favorite section.

Landscape photography is a bit of a struggle, for me. I may love a scene I'm looking at, but I don't always know why I love it. If there is a definite subject, such as a waterfall, I know why I love the scene, and I can usually figure out an effective way to frame the shot. However, if I love the scene, but don't really know why, it is probably because the scene evokes a strong feeling, but no individual component of that scene evokes that feeling. This mountain lake evoked a rather strong feeling of serenity, and I tried to capture that feeling. It's kind of hit or miss when I do that. Sometimes, I think it works, but no one else does. Sometimes, I'll look at a shot I took, and wonder what I was thinking, when I took it. (Those, no one ever sees.)

If the actual scene -- not the scene in camera -- evokes a strong feeling, yet there is no definite subject, I often have a hard time discerning what should be my focal point. Many times, I won't bother taking the shot. I want to do more than taking snapshot. This lake, though, was so peaceful and pristine that I took the shots, hoping to capture at least some of the feeling.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Few people can match the wickedness of my astigmatism. My eye doctor told me I was doomed, when it came to reading a putting green. The hardest putt for me to make is a six-footer with absolutely no break.

What is it that y'all are looking at, when you come to the conclusion that the photos are crooked? Normally, I fine tune a photo's level in Lightroom, and I'd probably do it based upon a shoreline, provided the shoreline was, more or less, straight and perpendicular to my camera's line of sight. In neither of these photos was that the case. The distant shore goes in and out. I actually did try to adjust these, in Lightroom, but any adjustment I made looked off.

I do have an eye doctor appointment this coming Monday morning.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I see nothing crooked at all. Perhaps it’s an optical illusion for them.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

When it comes to using bodies of water with land on the far side I have found it best to use a pole or tree to make vertical. Otherwise, you'd better use the waterline, accurate or not, or else you'll get called for a crooked photo!

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

I like the first better, I like how the foreground frames it. And every lake needs a dog - particularly a happy Lab. Duke adds to the adventure and takes nothing from the serenity.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Thanks, all! Duke is a riot. They live on a golf course, and each night, they take Duke around the course, long after the golfers are gone. Duke's passion is to find golf balls where no one else can find them. He will find as many as 18 golf balls on a single walk.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

seeing Duke in the water put a smile on my face - His other stories keep it there!