Shootist Loc: Wyoming

I spend a lot of time in this particular area and find many potential shots just won't come together. I believe I can get exposure, lighting and color to come out pretty well. My problem is that no matter how hard I try I cannot seem to capture the essence of what I am seeing.I can sit for long periods at this site and find it continuously inspiring. The elements of this image all tell a part of the Wyoming story but when I look at the image it somehow seems lacking.
I would appreciate anything you might offer in the way of suggestions, criticism or other comments.

PS: I am still working on how to get color profiling to match what I see on my monitor for images I upload to UH. The original is much brighter and better saturated.

(Download)

Kletzentono

I like this image a lot! The colors are wonderful, and the composition is very pleasing. I feel though that the dead tree stumps on the left are distracting from the whole image as they compete for attention. I would clone them out to establish a pleasing balance between the evergreen on the left and the magnificent tree on the right.

srt101fan

Sorry, can't help you.... The image is wonderful! It conveys the vastness and beauty of the land in a most excellent way. I love the subject, colors and composition. I think the dead tree on the left adds depth to the image. Well done!

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I like the image as composed. I might make some color adjustments and add a little dark vignette.

pshane

I'd prefer leaving the Stumps on the left, b/c it gives a feeling of Depth to the Image. - Otherwise, - maybe a little 'Pop' of the Green in the hills would make it stand out more.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Without knowing precisely what particular 'essence' you may be looking to capture (since there could potentially be a number of different such 'essences'), I see two two 'things' worth addressing. (I want to use the word 'issues' but that could be negatively construed, and that would be completely counter to how I'd want the following to be viewed.)

The first would be your placement; the spot you've chosen to stand to capture the scene. That choice will naturally determine the placement and relationships of the elements you've chosen to include or dis-include. In the instance at hand --the image you've posted-- it appears to me that those relationships could have been better defined by you having taken a few steps left or a few steps right. Had you gone left, you could've included more of the downed tree and in so doing, provided a near ground 'lead in' (NO! Not a "leading line" per se!) to 'bring' your viewer into the body of the image. As well, having included more of that tree, you could've better established a 'point ~ counterpoint oppositional 'equivalence' between the dead tree and the standing tree. Had you stepped right, you could've eliminated that downed tree altogether, which as it presently is, imbalances the overall composition.

The second 'thing' would be to 'true' the horizon line. By that, I mean the apparent curvature of the horizon, most noticeable near the right and left edges of the frame, could be easily corrected by applying some judicious warp to the image.

There's no point in me trying to address your color (your monitor -vs- your posting) issues, but I suspect others may take the time to do that. I do believe your image could be strengthened, however, by subtle changes in contrasts and color intensities as the scene recedes from near to far. Maybe just that would provide some of the 'essence' you may be looking for.

However you view the above, suffice it to say its a scene I'd love to get MY hands on. So maybe I'm just a little bit envious....

Quixdraw Loc: x

A very attractive location, one you can photograph many times, and a good photo of same. My one observation parallels something I often do - there are landscapes where you just can't include every cool thing in a single photo.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

First of all I like the shot as is, leave the stumps alone.

IMHO: Essence is a mixture of intangible things that no camera or post processing can capture. It is a combination of many things, including but not limited to, the smells, how the wind moves the grass and trees as well as how it feels on my face. Light and shadow not as technical thing that effect the exposure but add to the feeling. Essence is a Gestalt experience that can never be captured except by my memory and certainly not by any camera.

When I take a picture like that one I go home, process it to resemble as close as possible to what I saw and save it in what ever manner is appropriate. When I look at the picture again I don't really see the picture, I relive the experience, the essence if you will, of the picture and the experience in my memory.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If your objective is to convey the same sense of wide open space that you get when you're there in person, it's very difficult to do that effectively with a small image the size of your monitor (or your print or phone or whatever). When you're there in person your peripheral vision gives you an awareness of the vastness of your surroundings while at the same time your ability to focus your attention allows you to concentrate on specific details of the landscape. When you look at your monitor your peripheral vision will be making you aware of your actual surroundings - which probably won't include vast, wide open spaces.

Compensating for that difference is part of the challenge of making good landscape shots. As Cany says, the viewer needs to be led in to the shot. Objects or leading lines can be used to direct the viewer's attention into the shot, as can clear channels, or alternatively you can use one or more attention attractors that are literally off in the distance. Having a composition that randomly includes attention attractors (objects or areas of interest) that are in the foreground, mid ground and far field will not achieve that objective. The viewer may spend some time examining the various objects or areas of interest, but such a composition will be very limited in its effectiveness as far as conveying a sense of depth or open space is concerned.

Photos that focus on specific landscape features can work well as part of a series, but standalone landscape photos need good depth cues. You need to be clear as to which type of photo you're trying to achieve. For the latter you need good, eye-catching distant scenery plus a foreground and/or mid-field that leads the viewer's attention into the scene. So finding the eye-catching scenery is just the start of the process.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

And that is the essence of the challenge for all of us! It's called big sky country for a reason and I suspect that when you sit and enjoy your presence there you eye wanders from spot to spot or scans the entire scene to capture the majesty of it; too much to be easily captured in one photo. Even Adsel Adams' best shots focus on a specific feature (i.e. half dome). I'd suggest perhaps several photos to capture the individual aspects of it that move you. A circular polarizer would help with the sky and distant haze. BTW, I agee with others; this is a good photo as is and I wish you luck searching for improvement.

usnret Loc: Woodhull Il

Have you tried shooting at dusk or dawn with clear skies and a rising or setting sun as part of the back drop? That would make for a good way to put more of the tree in the upper part of the 1/3ds rule. The tree in its own right is begging to be photographed. At the very least, loose the stump on the left. It's a mental distraction from the main subject.

Brokenland

The issue is, everything is in focus. You should have force focus your images on the main tree and allow the back ground to go out of focus. The other issue it timing or time of day, the natural light in this image doesn't offer you any benefit.

angler Loc: StHelens England

Excellent shot.

J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

I do agree - nice scene but doesn't go anywhere just fades into the far distance.