Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Landscape Photography
Requesting comments on this image
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Mar 30, 2019 20:22:56   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
This is Cotacachi, a 16,000+ foot dormant volcano that sits beside Lake Cuicocha, which is actually a caldera of a sister volcano. Chicocha has minor activity that makes the water contain sulphur and gives it a high temperature.

I have worked this image a bit in LR (contrast, clarity and tone), then in NIK to bring out a bit more detail. I think I'm done. The clouds were moving rapidly, and I chose a moment when the apex was clear and in sun.

Comments? Thanks in advance.


(Download)

Reply
Mar 30, 2019 21:12:01   #
SnappyHappy Loc: Chapin, SC “The Capitol of Lake Murray”
 
Nice job with the sky, I love the lighting of the upper left mountain. It’s always easy to find things in post that I wish I had included/excluded at capture. I think this photo needs a foreground focal point to draw the viewer in...maybe a vertical excluding the right and including more foreground with an focal anchor. This is a beautiful scene that I wish I could see for myself and most probably a better photograph than I would have came home with. Thanks for sharing.

Reply
Mar 30, 2019 22:07:25   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
SnappyHappy wrote:
Nice job with the sky, I love the lighting of the upper left mountain. It’s always easy to find things in post that I wish I had included/excluded at capture. I think this photo needs a foreground focal point to draw the viewer in...maybe a vertical excluding the right and including more foreground with an focal anchor. This is a beautiful scene that I wish I could see for myself and most probably a better photograph than I would have came home with. Thanks for sharing.


Thanks for your candor. I actually did turn my camera to look. But there was a restraining wall and some not so wonderful bushes in the way of a good vertical. The image I took just before this one was probably better, but the cloud hadn't moved off the mountaintop, so I opted for this one.

Reply
 
 
Mar 30, 2019 22:10:23   #
kenievans Loc: Dallas
 
Beautiful light, depth and detail! I think I would have tried to include a little more of the water and curve of the caldera if possible but that is second guessing. You did a wonderful job.

Reply
Mar 30, 2019 22:17:58   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
kenievans wrote:
Beautiful light, depth and detail! I think I would have tried to include a little more of the water and curve of the caldera if possible but that is second guessing. You did a wonderful job.


I wish I could have. The restraining wall and bushes precluded that. And where you can see more of the lake, there's stuff in the way and the mountain isn't as dramatic. Thanks for the comment.

Reply
Mar 30, 2019 22:32:18   #
Cany143 Loc: SE Utah
 
AzPicLady wrote:
This is Cotacachi, a 16,000+ foot dormant volcano that sits beside Lake Cuicocha, which is actually a caldera of a sister volcano. Chicocha has minor activity that makes the water contain sulphur and gives it a high temperature.

I have worked this image a bit in LR (contrast, clarity and tone), then in NIK to bring out a bit more detail. I think I'm done. The clouds were moving rapidly, and I chose a moment when the apex was clear and in sun.

Comments? Thanks in advance.


Your image is not quite 'done:'

Technically/objectively: You've left a dust-on-sensor spot approximately 1/5 of the way in on the right, just above the brightest section of cloud. Easy fix, so fix it. As well, as a result of whatever you've done in post, you've created the dreaded 1-2 pixel wide 'blank white space' between the ridge line and the sky (most noticeable on the right half of the image), and while most won't notice it, or comment on it, I will, and have. Another easy fix. Fix it and you'll improve the image.

Compositionally: The sliver of lake you included at the bottom is awkward. It neither anchors nor equals the tonally similar sky. Similarly, the bit of foreground foliage in the extreme bottom right, neither anchors or equals its opposite --the rising cloud in the upper left. Likewise, the forested island left of center seems more an afterthought than a photographic element. The fix? Eliminate the lake, the foliage and the island. In a human face, "beauty" is often considered symmetry. In a landscape --which to me is the 'face' of the land--, that symmetry can often be expressed as a symmetry in light and dark. In this instance, achieving a symmetry (in volume) between the darker treed area of the lower cliffs/middle ground and the space occupied by the sky would work toward that goal, and in the process, the somewhat overbearing cloud that occupies the top left third of the image would be less a draw for the eye.

Subjectively: A common response might include a revision of your image and add that to such a reply. I did a couple of revisions --in color and in b&w-- and both better please me. But I'm not you, and there's no reason for you to 'like' any revision I might make, nor would either necessarily achieve whatever intent you may have had in making your image.

Its difficult to comment on another's image. In this instance --and especially since you asked for comment-- and in past work you've contributed, you're clearly enough of a photographer that I believe you'd have come to these determinations on your own.

Reply
Mar 30, 2019 22:47:08   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
Cany143 wrote:
Your image is not quite 'done:'

Technically/objectively: You've left a dust-on-sensor spot approximately 1/5 of the way in on the right, just above the brightest section of cloud. Easy fix, so fix it. As well, as a result of whatever you've done in post, you've created the dreaded 1-2 pixel wide 'blank white space' between the ridge line and the sky (most noticeable on the right half of the image), and while most won't notice it, or comment on it, I will, and have. Another easy fix. Fix it and you'll improve the image.

Compositionally: The sliver of lake you included at the bottom is awkward. It neither anchors nor equals the tonally similar sky. Similarly, the bit of foreground foliage in the extreme bottom right, neither anchors or equals its opposite --the rising cloud in the upper left. Likewise, the forested island left of center seems more an afterthought than a photographic element. The fix? Eliminate the lake, the foliage and the island. In a human face, "beauty" is often considered symmetry. In a landscape --which to me is the 'face' of the land--, that symmetry can often be expressed as a symmetry in light and dark. In this instance, achieving a symmetry (in volume) between the darker treed area of the lower cliffs/middle ground and the space occupied by the sky would work toward that goal, and in the process, the somewhat overbearing cloud that occupies the top left third of the image would be less a draw for the eye.

Subjectively: A common response might include a revision of your image and add that to such a reply. I did a couple of revisions --in color and in b&w-- and both better please me. But I'm not you, and there's no reason for you to 'like' any revision I might make, nor would either necessarily achieve whatever intent you may have had in making your image.

Its difficult to comment on another's image. In this instance --and especially since you asked for comment-- and in past work you've contributed, you're clearly enough of a photographer that I believe you'd have come to these determinations on your own.
Your image is I not /I quite 'done:' br br Tech... (show quote)


I missed the dust spot. And my eyes aren't good enough to see those outlines. Maybe I overdid the clarity? Thanks for pointing that out. I'll look at the crop you suggest and see how it suits. I'd like to see what you did. Could you PM them to me?

The cloud upper left was there. I'm not fond of it. But a huge cloud was coming to cover the top and my time was getting short. It had to be.

I really appreciate your thoughts.

Reply
 
 
Mar 31, 2019 00:17:46   #
jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana
 
Nice as it is--that said, perhaps a little more contrast would give the photo more pop.

Reply
Mar 31, 2019 01:32:28   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
Cany143 wrote:
Your image is not quite 'done:'

Technically/objectively: You've left a dust-on-sensor spot approximately 1/5 of the way in on the right, just above the brightest section of cloud. Easy fix, so fix it. As well, as a result of whatever you've done in post, you've created the dreaded 1-2 pixel wide 'blank white space' between the ridge line and the sky (most noticeable on the right half of the image), and while most won't notice it, or comment on it, I will, and have. Another easy fix. Fix it and you'll improve the image.

Compositionally: The sliver of lake you included at the bottom is awkward. It neither anchors nor equals the tonally similar sky. Similarly, the bit of foreground foliage in the extreme bottom right, neither anchors or equals its opposite --the rising cloud in the upper left. Likewise, the forested island left of center seems more an afterthought than a photographic element. The fix? Eliminate the lake, the foliage and the island. In a human face, "beauty" is often considered symmetry. In a landscape --which to me is the 'face' of the land--, that symmetry can often be expressed as a symmetry in light and dark. In this instance, achieving a symmetry (in volume) between the darker treed area of the lower cliffs/middle ground and the space occupied by the sky would work toward that goal, and in the process, the somewhat overbearing cloud that occupies the top left third of the image would be less a draw for the eye.

Subjectively: A common response might include a revision of your image and add that to such a reply. I did a couple of revisions --in color and in b&w-- and both better please me. But I'm not you, and there's no reason for you to 'like' any revision I might make, nor would either necessarily achieve whatever intent you may have had in making your image.

Its difficult to comment on another's image. In this instance --and especially since you asked for comment-- and in past work you've contributed, you're clearly enough of a photographer that I believe you'd have come to these determinations on your own.
Your image is I not /I quite 'done:' br br Tech... (show quote)


Cany nailed it. I've learned that anything that does not add to the composition should be removed.

Reply
Mar 31, 2019 08:57:34   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Overall, the image has a green tint and needs more contrast. I would prefer clouds that are white and the sky more blue that can be done by lowering the temp slightly and moving the tint toward red in adjusting the WB. Adding white to the whites and black to the blacks will help with the image contrast and to whiten the clouds.

There also appears to be a cloning error behind your watermark. There's a circle of land and shore that appears misplaced behind the letters 'Clure'. Others have mentioned the bit of random tree in the lower right that is unnecessary.

After raising the white, if you lower the highlights slightly, you can get more details of the clouds, particularly those to the right of center above the ridge line.

Personally, I try to avoid openings in the cloud like the bit of blue that goes over the top margin on the upper left. I'd have to see the original uncropped to see if there was a way avoid that opening. Next, I'd look to clone a portion of the cloud to close up that opening.

Reply
Mar 31, 2019 09:00:01   #
fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut
 
My first thought is that you were too timid with the contrast. In addition to the other comments regarding the composition, I feel the watermark is as unwanted as the clump of foliage in the lower right, but removing several things will not put more water at the bottom.

Reply
 
 
Mar 31, 2019 09:44:17   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
jaymatt wrote:
Nice as it is--that said, perhaps a little more contrast would give the photo more pop.


Thanks, Jay. I've upped and downed the contrast on this thing for about a week. It seems each time I looked at it, I wanted it the other way! Glad to know you vote for UP!

Reply
Mar 31, 2019 09:44:47   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Cany nailed it. I've learned that anything that does not add to the composition should be removed.


Thanks. I'm working on his suggestion.

Reply
Mar 31, 2019 09:52:24   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Overall, the image has a green tint and needs more contrast. I would prefer clouds that are white and the sky more blue that can be done by lowering the temp slightly and moving the tint toward red in adjusting the WB. Adding white to the whites and black to the blacks will help with the image contrast and to whiten the clouds.

There also appears to be a cloning error behind your watermark. There's a circle of land and shore that appears misplaced behind the letters 'Clure'. Others have mentioned the bit of random tree in the lower right that is unnecessary.

After raising the white, if you lower the highlights slightly, you can get more details of the clouds, particularly those to the right of center above the ridge line. I'll look at that this afternoon. THANKS!

Personally, I try to avoid openings in the cloud like the bit of blue that goes over the top margin on the upper left. I'd have to see the original uncropped to see if there was a way avoid that opening. Next, I'd look to clone a portion of the cloud to close up that opening.
Overall, the image has a green tint and needs more... (show quote)


The land behind my watermark is one of two small islands in the lake. They have raised up due to volcanic activity under the lake. So that is a part of the scene, not a cloning error. The image isn't cropped, so the blue sky you see above the white is there. I'll try closing that and see how it looks. I had taken the highlights down about as far as they would go when I started. If I reopen the "finished" image again, I can take them down more.

Reply
Mar 31, 2019 09:54:17   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
fergmark wrote:
My first thought is that you were too timid with the contrast. In addition to the other comments regarding the composition, I feel the watermark is as unwanted as the clump of foliage in the lower right, but removing several things will not put more water at the bottom.


I only watermark images that will be put on FB and UHH. Another vote for increasing the contrast. I was afraid that it looked "overcooked" when I had it upped. As I stated earlier, I've played with it a LOT! I'll look at it again and see if I can find a happy medium somewhere. Thanks!

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Landscape Photography
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.