Fredericton, NB Riverscape - Critique Welcomed

[PasqualettoM]

Hello All,

Coming on here for some valuable critique on the following 3 shots.
Any comments, Thoughts or Questions are welcome!

Thanks, Matt

 

[OGsPhotography]

Hi

I know that river well! I do not however recognize anything in this photo telling me its Freddy.

A bit of CnC; The photos heavy on the vignette for my taste. There are no real subjects per se unless its the crane? The old bridge posts? Too much sky perhaps.

 

[PasqualettoM]

Thanks OGsPhotography for the comment and CnC.

I appreciate every bit of advice which I receive. I find vignette is a touchy subject as what one likes another usually dislikes. For myself I do tend to be a bit heavier at times(unintentionally) although on my monitor these images do not appear to be too heavy(for my tastes) but on mobile they certainly are.

With my landscape/riverscape work I generally haven't thought of making a specific item a focal point to the sense that it is jumping out at you. Definitely food for thought!

I'm not sure how to take your notation that you know the river well but do not recognize anything in these images telling you it is Freddy? Are you from Fredericton? Was the comment pointed towards no focal point to pull you to the location or a literal comment that you do not see anything which leads you to recognize the content as Fredericton NB?

Edited to correct spelling errors

 

[OGsPhotography]

The skyline is very underexposed so it doesnt jump out as recognizable to me is all I mean to say I guess. So yeah no focal point saying Fredericton and literally nothing to recognize.

Lived in Fredericton for a long time, 7 years and 5 in Oromocto.

I like the third photo the best. The posts are interesting and the ripples in the water combined with the lighting. Noc

 

[Derrel]

These have a very wide-angle look, where the objects in the distance are physically small in the final image, and lack details that we can easily, readily see. These also have a far-away look in the middle distance as well. This is a common issue with landscapes that many people create. The third photo has the most interesting foreground items in it I think, but the background, again, is physically small.

Compare the size of the foreground brick or concrete elements, and the physical final-image size of the skykline buildings, and that tiny, tiny crane. That's the issue with a wide-angle lens length: it makes everything that's more than 10 feet away render as physically small in the final image.

I have not looked at the EXIF information, but my gut tells me these were all made with a shiort lens length. I like the ice formation in #2. My feeling is that #2 would have made a better landscape shot at 55mm, and the ice shown a bit, and much less of the city shown--but shown more-magnified, by having used a longer lens length.

These are all typical landscape shots made with a kit lens that was shot at short lengths; this is where a 55-200mm or a 70-300 VR would allow the photographer to literally zoom in on some interesting stuff, and show it more-magnified, physically larger, within the final composition.

On the plus side, these all have good skies, good lighting, and you were there at the right time to capture each shot.

 

[PasqualettoM]

Thank you for the CnC Derrel.

A number of additional points for me to ponder. I did elect to shoot with a 18-55 for these shots but the goal in mind(which I should have probably explained in my first post) was for a minimalist output for the city scape aspect.

I am not sure that had I used any of my other glass that I would have accomplished what my vision for these shots was. It is something I will have to experiment with in order to see if I would come out with a result which I would be able to appreciate. I see from looking at your link of recently posted photos that most are tight shots. Do you have any landscape shots you have done which you could post or send me in order to see the variance of what you are suggesting? OR perhaps just a visual reference of an alternate work that represents a landscape shot with a zoom lens.

 

[ClickAddict]

Hey Matt, Welcome to TPF. I agree with the comments above, but have to add that the old bridge posts/base is very recognizable as being in Fredericton.

 

[Derrel]

Many experienced landscape shooters love telephoto lenses. Check out The Luminous Landscape website for hundreds of examples of telephoto landscape shots. Longer focal lengths can keep backgrounds large enough to create interesting details for the eye to examine.
Minimalist output for the cityscapes was achieved, but at the expense of visual impact beyond just a few meters distance from the lens. Learning to use short focal length lenses takes time, and understanding of how depth is conveyed in a flat, 2-D format. It's more than can be conveyed in a post here. If you are unsure that anything other than an 18-55 lens could have fulfilled your vision, which you say typically includes no single focal point, then definitely stay in the shorter range of that zoom lens in the future, and you'll likely continue to make shots that have that type of distant and faraway, semi-wide type feeling of space.

 

[PasqualettoM]

Thanks Derrel, perhaps I should have been clearer above. Each image has a focal point in them but for the scope of the city which was being referenced as being too distant there was no focal point.

Image 1 the focal point was the drift wood although I would have wanted more detail to pop.
Image 2 Focal point is the Ice Fractures
Image 3 Focal Point the abutments

I will check out your suggestions and again truly appreciate the tips and feedback

 

[Derrel]

You'll get there! Let's take for example shot #1 with the wood in the foreground: the tough part is that in a river environment, there's no way to get CLOSE enough to make the wood large in the frame, unless you get in a boat and move closer to it, so the only solution from shore is to lengthen the focal length.

River and seascape type shots from shore are tricky. I think the challenge is translating human vision, and our human ability to mentally focus-in on details and subjects into camera vision. The camera sees things somewhat differently than we as people see things, so it's a process of trying different camera placement to change perspective, and also a matter of trying different lens focal lengths to change what is called apparent perspective; the two are different terms, and are different. What you have run up against in this instance is being LOCKED IN to one, particular camera placement, so the perspective can not be changed by moving the camera any closer.

Perspective is dependent on the camera-to-subject distance, and placement. There is no way to change perspective except to move the camera. Perspective is a specific word, with a specific meaning,and is a key photography term. Perspective does not change when the lens length is changed, but the apparent perspective (another photography vocabulary word) can be changed by using a different lens length. Because you cannot move the camera any closer to the things in the river zone, that's why I suggested a longer lens.

In situations where we can not easily change the camera-to-subject distance to change the perspective of the picture, we're left with working with what we CAN control, which is the apparent perspective, and that means using different lens lengths to get a variety of different apparent perspectives,or different "looks" to the image.

Your ostensible subject, the ice formations, or the old bridge footings, are being overshadowed by a large expanse of sky; the subject you wanted to focus in on was readily visible to your human eyes, but that subject does not stand out in camera vision to nearly the extent that is stands out to himan vision; the shorter lens lengths literally make things in the distance show up physically SMALL on the sensor; this is why short lens lengths are poor for showing detail and interest in things located at 30,40,50 meters from the camera. Short lens lengths EXAGGERATE the apparent or relative size of the close-up stuff, and INCREASE the feeling of distance by decreasing the physical size of objects beyond about 3 meters. A short lens length is actually directly at odds with your goals, in a physics type or lens-vision sense.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I would agree vignette is way too strong. I usually try to go no higher than 15 (and that's the extreme level for me).

It's a decent enough image, but yeah, not really sure what I should be focusing on.