What does this need? (Page 3): Hey Dennis! Thanks for stopping by! I don't know precisely where we were at the time, but we were on a Norwegian "Cruise to Alaska", so we may have been...

gmontjr2350 Loc: Southern NJ

dennis2146 wrote:

I see the alterations others have made and I like them but what the photo really needs in my opinion is a point of interest. Yes it is a lovely lake but is that it? There are many lovely lakes out there, hundreds of thousands of them in fact. But if there was a sailboat on the lake, a deer or moose at the edge of the water, ducks on the water or just landing, something else to look at besides the lake it would be a much better photograph.

Dennis

Hey Dennis! Thanks for stopping by!
I don't know precisely where we were at the time, but we were on a Norwegian "Cruise to Alaska", so we may have been in the Stephens Passage, headed for Juneau.
I've been told to crop out most of the water so as to emphasize the mountains and sky and I agree with that, as well as your view that there should be more foreground interest. There's no just foreground interest to had...

I wasn't carrying many lenses, just my 24-85mm and 80-200mm, so I had to make do. The sky was what drew my interest, so there you have it.
The picture was flat and I wanted some advice as to how to improve it. Several kind folks have offered advice as to how to do that.
I thank them and you as well!

George

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

gmontjr2350 wrote:

Hey Dennis! Thanks for stopping by! br I don't kno... (show quote)

George I appreciate your comment more than you know. I don't recall from your original post if you had a Nikon system or not but when I had a Nikon D800 I had a 24-85 lens with it. I, along with several other members swear by the 24-85 lens for usefulness and also for sharpness. For me it was one tack sharp lens.

I like the idea of cropping out some water for a view of the mountains. That would make the mountains the prime interest and they are always interesting, especially in Alaska. I wish you well on your photographic journey.

Dennis

Abo

dennis2146 wrote:

I see the alterations others have made and I like them but what the photo really needs in my opinion is a point of interest. Yes it is a lovely lake but is that it? There are many lovely lakes out there, hundreds of thousands of them in fact. But if there was a sailboat on the lake, a deer or moose at the edge of the water, ducks on the water or just landing, something else to look at besides the lake it would be a much better photograph.

Dennis

you ever sat by an ocean, river, mountains and just enjoyed the view,
without any other stimulation?...

I have to admit though that the experience would
be enhanced by an F/A-18 in full after-burner
blasting by in the foreground. lol

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Abo wrote:

you ever sat by an ocean, river, mountains and just enjoyed the view,
without any other stimulation?...

I have to admit though that the experience would
be enhanced by an F/A-18 in full after-burner
blasting by in the foreground. lol

Why, yes I have just sat and enjoyed the view. But that does not mean I would just take a photo of the view. Pretty can be in the mind and does not always have to be recorded.

For some reason I seem to think you are attacking me because of my answer to the OP's question of what is lacking. I gave my answer that he seemed to understand and accept. Do you not understand and accept at least my viewpoint of his photograph? He is certainly welcome to his views as are we all. Had he not asked I would not have said anything at all. It was a nice snapshot, that's all, a record shot of his trip. I am missing why you seem to have a problem with my answer.

Dennis

ski Loc: West Coast, USA

Try lightening the shadows a little to bring out more detain. Less contrast might get rid of the bluish tint.

ski Loc: West Coast, USA

The inner passage can be a bit difficult to capture due to all of the hues, contrasts and lighting

MFTVGirl Loc: Baltimore, MD

Lots of potential--some foreground might be good.

Abo

dennis2146 wrote:

Why, yes I have just sat and enjoyed the view. Bu... (show quote)

Sorry Dennis,

Didn't mean to make you feel like you were being attacked.

I just felt (and it's true for me) that a land or waterscape can be enjoyed for the view of nature alone.

I did also add that another element ("I have to admit though that the experience would
be enhanced by an F/A-18 in full after-burner
blasting by in the foreground. lol") would not necessarily hurt the image,
somewhat agreeing with your post...

So I find it hard to understand why you felt you were being attacked when
I actually supported what you wrote.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Abo wrote:

Sorry Dennis, br br Didn't mean to make you feel ... (show quote)

No need to apologize. My feeling was I was the only one who you brought up to make your point. You could have made the same point while bringing up nobody at all.

Dennis

Abo

dennis2146 wrote:

No need to apologize. My feeling was I was the only one who you brought up to make your point. You could have made the same point while bringing up nobody at all.

Dennis

I was compelled to quote your post as it said that it needed something more ie:

"something else to look at besides the lake"
Even though there are mountains and clouds to look at as well
which you either did not notice or chose to ignore.

Why are you being argumentative...
especially since I agreed with what you said, when I quoted your post.
to remind you of that fact again:

"I have to admit though that the experience would
be enhanced by an F/A-18 in full after-burner
blasting by in the foreground. lol"

Maybe Dennis has lost the string attached to his tampon.