1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Let me know what you think. Technical and subject-based comments are both welcome. Thnx!
I think they work out compositionally except for too much sky in two of them (1 and 4) and are great to look at! Nice work
I prefer the shots with clouds. In those the interest extends right across the image. If I was taking these landscapes I'd definitely be looking for either some foreground interest (a fence, person, building, etc), or a very definite distant point that a viewer's gaze would settle on. I'd also be trying some shots that didn't include sky at all, or were 2/3 or 3/4 sky (if there were some interesting clouds .) Regards, Tony
Thanks guys. I agree that it's better when there are clouds in the sky. Unfortunetly, nature doesn't always cooperate. In fact, I see alot of mountains that would make for a great picture except the sky is not accommodating. Especially in winter you get alot of white-outs.
I don't know why you added more photos to the first lot, and in the same thread even, when the first were already quite many to critique... But when it comes to compositional detail and ideas about better composition, best do listen to tb2. He is the best photo composer I know. He sees ALL the detail and knows how to put it together for superbly composed photos consistently!
I figured that it would be easier to have one ongoing thread of a certain subject type, rather than having multiple threads scattered throughout. I certainly could be wrong, but it seems to me that it is simpler that way.