Discussion in 'The Black & White Gallery' started by Hertz van Rental, Dec 30, 2008.
Very worth spending some time to study.
This one feels crooked, too! (Although I think this one actually may be .5 or 1 degree off. I'd have to try it out to be sure.)
It held my attention for a long while.
I like it. I'm in England right now for vacation and this scenery looks incredibly familiar. Where was this taken at?
I like the lighting.
This one is nailed. I prefer this far greater than XII. This is very well done.
It's a strange thing but I have yet to find a natural landscape where the hills are perfectly flat and at 90 degrees to the vertical.
How I deal with this is always the same: make sure the camera is level.
If the horizon then appears to slope that's because it does.
Who am I to alter nature?
Most of my landscapes are taken in and around Rutland. Or just over the border.
The amount of detail you get in these pics in breathtaking. For example, the trees in the fields off in the distance (which almost look like they're emerging from the fog.) I especially like the line of trees on top of the ridge. I miss, though, the fantastic clouds your part of the world always seems to get.
I could not agree more. I have explained so many times the horizon does not have to be level. Just as a camera does not have to be level.
No criticism here about your mention of the camera level. I am referring to large changes in angle, say 33 degrees. Also, a picture does not have to be 4:3! Damn it, let it be square or oval, just make it look good.
Right there with you.
It's that post (damn near centered) that irks me. Other than that, well phuque me, what a brilliant shot.
The multitude of lines you've captured along with the multiple textures are what your landscape is all about. :thumbsup:
Short of using a chain-saw (which I left in my other jacket) I was stuck with it.
But it doesn't bother me as it was the shadows in the mid-ground field that really intrigued me.
As for detail - you should see the original. What is posted has been resized to only 1/4 of the width.
As for the comments about angle of camera, etc.
It is important to bear in mind what your idea is. This will dictate the way you take the picture. You should only change the angle or the format/shape of the image if that is how you envisage the finished picture to look from the outset.
Doing it after you have taken the picture to try to make it look 'better' - or doing it just for novelty's sake - is a case of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I went through all those kinds of phases several decades ago. I discovered that what works best for me is the purist approach.
I consider what my reaction is to a particular situation and then decide how best to represent this without recourse to cliche effects. I do as little post-processing as possible, no Photoshopping and very rarely crop.
My attitude is that if I didn't get it in camera then I didn't get it - period! - and no amount of playing around afterwards will change that fact.
Because if I don't know what I am doing with a camera now then I've wasted thirty-odd years of my life
But I don't expect others to share my view or follow my approach.
Each person has to find the way that works for them.
Whew! That's a relief!!!
Seriously though, another prime example!
How long did you have to wait on the light?
Happy New Year, BTW
Hmmm. I agree with you Hertz, although, if this were mine, I would still straighten it - the post is crooked, and I think everything would look better straight.
Then again, keywords: if it were mine. It isn't! (Even so, if I could get a picture this good, I'd be thrilled!)
Separate names with a comma.