From our honeymoon

[rppaint]

What do you think?

 

[rppaint]

Is three too many at a time? Sorry if it is.

 

[Trever1t]

not at all. It takes a while to get response here at times.

I like #2. The others are ok but mundane, we've all taken those shots

 

[rppaint]

I took over 700 and never know which to post lol

 

[Derrel]

I took over 700 and never know which to post lol

You appear to have the exact OPPOSITE of the problem that many posters have! I think #2 above is the best shot, in terms of a complete and well-executed photo. The others are a bit mundane, albeit of beautiful scenes, but since I was not AT any of those locations, I am a totally disinterested, dispassionate observer of the photos put in front of me. With no emotional attachment, and no fond memories or positive associations of the scenes or places, none of these photos really rise above the level of mundane. Except for shot #2, of the gravel path and lovely trees in fall colors...that photo has more "universal" appeal than all of the rest combined. I think because that picture deals in archetypes; gravel pathways; fall leaves littering the ground; a strong,big,dominant receding line that says "pathway"; deciduous trees in fall coloration; the changing of the seasons; big,bright, almost frame-filling color. So, you see, when looked at that way, out of five images, only ONE is of much interest to others, and while that might seem a bit low and that might disappoint you, a 20 percent hit rate for a photographer is truly exceptionally good. Imagine the football player who could score a goal 20 percent of the time he got a shot on goal--his pay level would make David Beckham's look like that of a beer vendor by comparison.

 

[rppaint]

Thank you both for your input! Since mundane has come up twice, is there anything I could have done to those shots to make them more interesting? Lol

 

[Derrel]

In landscapes, a strong, interesting foreground object can REALLY help. The old castle on the bluffs---the sky is bald and weak--wait for better lighting. The fog scene....all that grass in the foreground is dull: the real "hook" is the way the trees disappear in the fog, so use a telephoto to crop out the majority of the grass, and make the TREES the foreground, and then have them fade into the fog. The ocean-scape: that railing at the bottom right corner is not a strong enough foreground object: that shot does not work well as a "tall"--it would have been much better as a landscape-oriented shot. The stairs and dual-person shadow shot....hmm--have her "attack" you with an imaginary hammer in the shadow-play, perhaps???

I do not want to sound condescending, but what you have done here is to aim the camera and snap the shutter; making truly interesting photos from landscapes requires a LOT of thought as to where the BEST camera position is, and what to show, and also, most importantly, what to LEAVE OUT. Getting closer is one key. Changing the camera's vantage point is another. For example, the castle on the bluffs--okay, bald, ugly sky...what to do THEN, without waiting for better light??? Move 3/4 of the way up the bluff, or go even closer toward the castle and shoot with a 18mm focal length, in silhouette!!! A strong simple graphical image that works WITH the light, instead of against the prevailing light. How??? By shooting "against the light" aka contre jour, in sucky backlighted conditions, you could have created an interesting silhouetted castle that would use its simple shape,size, and form as the "hook".

 

[Joel_W]

Not much to add after reading Darrel's two posts. He nailed it right on the head as to the differences between a snap shot and a solid landscape photograph. Picture #2 is the only one that qualifies as such.

 

[rppaint]

These are some tried with stuff in the foreground, but I didn't think they worked out so well. I feel like the harder I try the worse my photos turn out! Lol I know I still have a lot to learn!