sunshine on the lake

[photogod]

 

[feRRari4756]

very boring to me, no bacground or foreground.

looks more like a snapshot than anything...

 

[rlcphotos]

as much as I hesitate there is nothing there for me either

 

[LaFoto]

Brightness is still way too bright, the inclined bit of top far banks is distracting, and the bit of tree is all hidden and overridden by the bright reflections.
What aperture did you use for this one?

(And I must agree: I find this pretty devoid of any subject, too). You should have waited for the sun to be further down and give you some different colours than burnt-white.

 

[ShutterSpeed]

I agree. Very boring.

I have often been tempted to take similar shots, but am learning when I know that what I see doesn't always come out if you focus on the "beautiful" part only. I feel that to some degree you have to have something "less beautiful" in your shot to make what you thougth was beautiful stand out.

This shot - is only the water. We don't see the context such as the nature surrounding it, the curves of the lake. Also, the sun is too bright in it, which is really hard to control when you're shooting right into the reflection on the water. Try lowering your white balance.

 

[LaFoto]

But I have once tried to take a very similar photo myself, too, and not too long ago (only in October, when we crossed the waters of the Dardanelles - west coast of Turkey - by boat and I tried to capture the glint and glitter of the sun on the waves). See_here - as devoid of a subject...

 

[ShutterSpeed]

But I have once tried to take a very similar photo myself, too, and not too long ago (only in October, when we crossed the waters of the Dardanelles - west coast of Turkey - by boat and I tried to capture the glint and glitter of the sun on the waves). See_here - as devoid of a subject...

I must say, that picture brings back so many memories of my own experience on the waters of the Dardanelles...j/k

I love water shots, but usually water shots are best when in comparison to non water.

Artistically speaking, when you have stark contrasts in image and in concept, there tends to be a better appeal to the eye (not always, but usually).

Examples.
Water v. Land (waterfall)
Dark v Light (sunsets)
Color v. Non-color (images shot against a white or black background)(or images edited where the background has been desaturated in comparison to the saturation of the main subject.)
Strong v. Weak (children being held by their parents)

Contrast is important - it provides a visual context.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, actually, the contrasts of sun on water and sun not on water were BLINDING. Totally BLINDING. You couldn't actually look there. That's why I just wanted to test if I could capture it in a photo, all the same, using among the smallest of apertures that lens offers (f29, I think), so the sparkles would all turn into little stars, and well... that was the result of my "playing around with the camera" (which, by the way, is all I EVER do!).

 

[ShutterSpeed]

Well, actually, the contrasts of sun on water and sun not on water were BLINDING. Totally BLINDING. You couldn't actually look there. That's why I just wanted to test if I could capture it in a photo, all the same, using among the smallest of apertures that lens offers (f29, I think), so the sparkles would all turn into little stars, and well... that was the result of my "playing around with the camera" (which, by the way, is all I EVER do!).

Absolutely. That's all I ever do too (playing around). I mosied over to "Beyond the Basics" and had a look around. That is a serious group of photographers. I think I'm content to stay in the beginner forum for a little longer.

I used to have these really complicated ideas that could only be accomplished in photoshop - then i realized that my ideas exceeded my knowledge of photoshop.

I just ordered a wireless remote for my D60(welcome to the 21st Century, ShutterSpeed)...and hopefully, I can be a little more creative with it.