Composition Query

[dimitrz]

Hi Everyone,

How is the composition of this photo ?

Though you are welcome to comment on the technical aspect; I am more concerned about the composition & what could have been done better with regards to it.

Though Tripod was used , it was tough owing to almost 35 degree inclination of the bank.

Also there was hardly any more space towards the right.


Link to photo Seaside
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23531375@N00/2457028503/


Cheeers

Dimitrz

[Mr Guy]

For starters Click on the "All Sizes" link and pick the medium size (as I just linked), and use the provided HTML below the picture to copy and paste into your post so we can see it more easily.


As for the picture, I like it. Tree near the bottom third, and shoreline on the right third lines, give or take. I might have been tempted to decrease try and decrease the depth of field to give more of a hazy feel to the background, because I like the feel of the horizon. It is a hair dark though.

Heck, I'd be really tempted to blend out the horizon entirely in post processing, and let the sky flow straight up onto the shore, but that's just me!

[PhotoNewt]

First question is what were you trying to showcase on this picture, the main subject is unclear. A good photograph most have a clear subject, feeling or idea for the viewer to concentrate on.

If the sky is the part you intend to emphasize, locating the horizon on the lower third of the frame may have worked better - for the beach or sea, the horizon on the upper third is more appropriate. As it stands, there is no definition with a horizon line near the middle of the frame. I personally feel the beach is more visually intersting here than the sky so I would opt for the second option.

Speaking about the horizon, you should always make sure the horizon line is straight. A slanting horizon usually don't work well on landscape shot.

The use of a prominent foreground object to provide a sense of depth is a good compositional technique, however I feel the piece of wood in the foreground is not interesting enough to elicit the viewer's attention. Perhaps a closer focus on it can reveal an interesting texture or color; a small plant or animal on the trunk, if present, may also provide an interesting focal point.

There are some technical deficiencies as well but I guess the intent here was more to gather feed back on composition and not technique.

[dimitrz]

Thanks for the tips Mr Guy appriciate it.


Photonewt thanks once again and to answer your query

Well to be quite frank, I didn’t have a story here ( but then again I feel there are times when you don’t have a story to tell but you just like the scene)

Subject wise I would say I was intrested in the backwater/beach region (not the sky)

Since I didn’t have a story I just tried to get the three basic principles of landscape photography

1) Get a foreground subject ( the log – agree may be because it was too thin it didn’t come up good)
2) Middle ground subject ( water & treeline )
3) Background subject ( uninteresting sky )

Do you think the horizon is titled because I used the tripod on a inclined platform/slope and forgot to adjust the horizon level – or is there some other possible explanation to it.

Ps: I am curious what technical feedback you wanted to provide apart from the fact that the shot is seriously underexposed.

Be kind – because nowadays it seems the more harder I try to get a technically better shot, the more I end up screwing the shot. Sometimes I feel I took better photos when I was not paying attention to all these setting & rules; and was using just auto or landscape mode LOL

Cheers

Dimitrz

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

Well to be quite frank, I didn’t have a story here ( but then again I feel there are times when you don’t have a story to tell but you just like the scene)

True. But it was obvious you also wanted to experiment with some landscape composition techniques which is a smart idea.

The photograph may not need to tell a story but needs a "focal point" to grab the viewer's attention.

Subject wise I would say I was intrested in the backwater/beach region (not the sky)

Makes sense, I feel the sky is a little dull to be the main subject here.

Since I didn’t have a story I just tried to get the three basic principles of landscape photography

1) Get a foreground subject ( the log – agree may be because it was too thin it didn’t come up good)
2) Middle ground subject ( water & treeline )
3) Background subject ( uninteresting sky )

For your first attempt you did OK, don't feel discouraged. You had a plan in mind, the execution needs some tweaking. Forground subject is a good idea, gives a sense of depth to a landscape. A more interesting subject is needed, usually getting a little closer and lower (the camera taking the picture from the perspective of the foreground subject) works better.

The classical example is a beach scene with a large shell on the sand, while using the wide angle end of your zoom get the camera as close to the shell as possible while keeping it on focus, let the camera focus at infinity to get the rest of the scene and shoot. Put the shell in the right or left lower third of the frame and use it to visually lead the viewer to the distant scene.

Do you think the horizon is titled because I used the tripod on a inclined platform/slope and forgot to adjust the horizon level – or is there some other possible explanation to it.

This is a likely explanation, also seems you planted it on sand and may have shifted a bit as well.

Ps: I am curious what technical feedback you wanted to provide apart from the fact that the shot is seriously underexposed.

You see, you are learning already about exposure.

Exposure was a biggie but also the picture apears to have a soft focus which I believe is the result of diffraction - happens when a lens is stopped down to maximum. If you like the effect and is what you intended, then that is OK, otherwise you can shoot at f/4 and get sharper focus and full DoF. Small digital cameras provide lots of DoF at lower apertures than dSLR's.

My last point is about lighting, the best times of day to shoot a serious landscape (some would argue the only times) is either very early in the morning and up to 30 minutes after sunrise, or 30 minutes before sunset and while light is still available after.

There are three reasons for this:

1. The sun is low on the horizon and provides highly directional soft light, if it is at an angle to your subject will create contrast and depth on your photo.

2. Daylight temperature changes throughout the day, most of the day is very bluish which is unflattering for landscape work. At dawn and dusk is warmer which cause the landscape to light up and colors to become more vivid and saturated; this can dramatically improve the character of your scene.

3. Shortly before sunrise or after sunset there is a fleeting time (you need to be setup and ready) where the exposure of the ground and sky come closer allowing you to expose both with no filters of Photoshop tricks.

Be kind – because nowadays it seems the more harder I try to get a technically better shot, the more I end up screwing the shot. Sometimes I feel I took better photos when I was not paying attention to all these setting & rules; and was using just auto or landscape mode LOL

Cheers

Dimitrz

Sorry, I am not trying to discourage you but you seem truly interested in learning photography that is why I am being so detailed.

When I started my photos royally sucked! (and still do so today at times), we all were where you are now, some of us were fortunate enough to have good mentors along the way that helped us grow. That's what I am trying to do for you.

Is true that with the auto modes you are bound to get good results most of the time. You can even get great shots sometimes. But if you don't understand why the camera made the exposure choices you have little chance to replicate or control them.

The truth is with today's modern cameras I (and most seasoned SLR photographers I know) shoot on program mode (the dSLR semi-auto mode) most of the time - I review the exposure parameters and tweak them only when I need for creative purposes. I use the manual modes on my camera sparingly, about 10-15% of the time.

[dimitrz]

Originally Posted by PhotoNewt

Sorry, I am not trying to discourage you but you seem truly interested in learning photography that is why I am being so detailed.

.

Just going through your wonderful detailed answer.

While doing that just wanted to say ...please dont mind my remark of being kind .........Thats just my way of being cheeky

I beleive best way to master something fast is to take hard feedbacks - I feel its wrong to say something is right when its wrong ...and if one has to learn something then he/she should get as much of feedback as possible even if its hard.

Thats the only way you improve ---sugarcoated things wont do you any good...hard facts do

So I rather have 10 people shouting at me and saying something is wrong than give lollipops

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

JSo I rather have 10 people shouting at me and saying something is wrong than give lollipops

I will shout gently...

[dimitrz]

Originally Posted by PhotoNewt

Forground subject is a good idea, gives a sense of depth to a landscape. A more interesting subject is needed, usually getting a little closer and lower (the camera taking the picture from the perspective of the foreground subject) works better.

The classical example is a beach scene with a large shell on the sand, while using the wide angle end of your zoom get the camera as close to the shell as possible while keeping it on focus, let the camera focus at infinity to get the rest of the scene and shoot. Put the shell in the right or left lower third of the frame and use it to visually lead the viewer to the distant scene.

Just wondering if I keep a shell towards the right and focus on infinity wouldn’t one of the two happen a) Shell will get blurred because focus is on infinity ? & b) Incase the shell is still focused wont the aperture come down to F4 perhaps?

Originally Posted by PhotoNewt

Exposure was a biggie but also the picture appears to have a soft focus which I believe is the result of diffraction - happens when a lens is stopped down to maximum. If you like the effect and is what you intended, then that is OK, otherwise you can shoot at f/4 and get sharper focus and full DoF. Small digital cameras provide lots of DoF at lower apertures than dSLR's.

Never realized this is possible I though to get a better DOF you had to keep the aperture as near the smallest (F8 being the smallest for my camera ) - what you mentioned a real good to know information – thanks

Regarding softness I believe Sony DSC H2 by standard shoots a bit soft – I have an option to increase the sharpness in setting due you think I should tweak it a bit ? should the tweaking be doen for all photos or only for selected landscape photos ?

Originally Posted by PhotoNewt

some of us were fortunate enough to have good mentors along the way that helped us grow. That's what I am trying to do for you.

To be quite honest I really appreciate your interest, patience & effort in trying to rub off some off your immense experience & knowledge to me through the forum.

As you said not having a Mentor is what has caused a big void is in my quest to improve my photography - In my country there are only two kinds of photographer – the majority who are content with snapshots & and wouldn’t care less for the rules (no fault of theirs) ; And the Masters (read professionals) who are a rare commodity ( respectively ) and thus are hard to interact with unless you are learning photography professionally in university or big studios.

Also at least near to my place there are virtually no photography classes being conducted for an average lover of photography.

Hence anything & everything that I know I have learned through my experience , articles, books & ofcourse internet

Originally Posted by PhotoNewt

Is true that with the auto modes you are bound to get good results most of the time. You can even get great shots sometimes. But if you don't understand why the camera made the exposure choices you have little chance to replicate or control them. The truth is with today's modern cameras I (and most seasoned SLR photographers I know) shoot on program mode (the dSLR semi-auto mode) most of the time - I review the exposure parameters and tweak them only when I need for creative purposes. I use the manual modes on my camera sparingly, about 10-15% of the time.

Thanks for the tip – I’ll try to use Program mode ( something which I had totally ignored ) more often from now on .

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

Just wondering if I keep a shell towards the right and focus on infinity wouldn’t one of the two happen a) Shell will get blurred because focus is on infinity ? & b) Incase the shell is still focused wont the aperture come down to F4 perhaps?

This is easier to do with an SLR as you can push a button and check the focus of your foreground object before taking the picture. Having said that when you focus to infinity at wideangle with a very small aperture, you are going to get aceptable focus from around 3-5 feet (depending on lens) to infinity. If you focus at the hyperfocal distance (again easier on an SLR) your area of DoF for 24mm at f/22 may start at around a 1 feet from the lens.

Like everything in photography you need to go out and set up a test scenario; get a wide measure tape and lay it on the ground, set the focus to infinity, close down the aperture and take a photo - open up the image on the computer and read the distance when the focus is sharp enough for you. That way you will know for sure how your camera/lens combination works.

Never realized this is possible I though to get a better DOF you had to keep the aperture as near the smallest (F8 being the smallest for my camera ) - what you mentioned a real good to know information – thanks

This is an optical property of all lenses - the way it goes is as follows:

If you use a lens at wide open aperture, your focus is going to be soft and you may have purpule fringe resulting from sperical and chromatic aberration. This happens when the extreme border of the lens bends the rays of light and cause them to focus a little in front of the focal plane. This cause the image to look a little fuzzy.

As you close the aperture one or two stops, most of the border light rays are blocked by the diaphragm and spherical/chromatic aberration decrease until becoming negligible - you will experince progressive sharpness of the image and better color contrast.

As you approach the smallest aperture the light rays to bend excessively around the small opening dispersing at the other side causing the focus to change from a point to a small circle. This again causes softness on the focus and makes the image a bit fuzzy.

This is why most SLR users will shoot with the aperture set about 2-stops below wide open when maximum image quality is needed. Can you use wide open or the smallest aperture, yes and you should. You just need to be aware of these optical problems and judge when those are acceptable to you.

When I take a landscape on my camera I know that diffraction will start at apertures below f/11, at f/16 is acceptable and more visible at f/22 (I have experimented and found this out). I set my initial aperture at f/22 and take the shot, but I also take exposures at f/16 and f/11 - examine them closely on the computer and decide how much diffraction I am willing to accept. With proper sharpening, expansive landscapes usually look great at f/22.

Regarding softness I believe Sony DSC H2 by standard shoots a bit soft – I have an option to increase the sharpness in setting due you think I should tweak it a bit ? should the tweaking be doen for all photos or only for selected landscape photos ?

You should try to avoid this. The sharpening routines on most cameras can introduce artifacts to the image. I would suggest leaving all your in-camera image parametes (sharpness, saturation, contrast and hue if present) on neutral, then open the image on your favorite software and do the sharpening, saturation and contrast adjustment there.

To be quite honest I really appreciate your interest, patience & effort in trying to rub off some off your immense experience & knowledge to me through the forum.

My father was a freelance photographer, I have been attached to a camera in one way or another since I remember. I started using a manual SLR when I was around 8 years old, have read a lot over the years and have been around many professional photographers who taught me a lot of what I know and help clarify the tought questions I had...funny but in the end I did not become a professional photographer as everyone expected.

Thanks for the tip – I’ll try to use Program mode ( something which I had totally ignored ) more often from now on .

I do not know how your program mode works, in my camera the [P] option works similar to the fully automatic mode but it allows full access to all the advanced function such as mirror lock, flash exposure and many others not available on full auto. When you press the shutter half-way, the camera suggest an aperture/shutter combination - just as in auto - but there is a little wheel conveniently located behind the shutter button that allows to shift the exposure by simply turning the wheel.

For example, if I want to take a quick candid portrait I point and get an initial exposure -> the camera may suggest f/8 - 1/125. I would like to blur the background a little more so I need a larger aperture, so I rotate the wheel and it takes me through equivalent exposures: f/4 - 1/500 -> f/2.8 - 1/1000 and voila!, f/2.8 works for me so I press the shutter and take the photo, all this took less than a couple of seconds while looking throught the viewfinder.

[dimitrz]

Originally Posted by PhotoNewt

My father was a freelance photographer, I have been attached to a camera in one way or another since I remember. I started using a manual SLR when I was around 8 years old, have read a lot over the years and have been around many professional photographers who taught me a lot of what I know and help clarify the tought questions I had...funny but in the end I did not become a professional photographer as everyone expected.

Ah ha ….so you had a great advantage ….but then again it might have resulted in lot of over expectation if your dad was a perfectionist .

May be you love photography too much to bring the work stress of being a professional into it - one way to ensure theres no needless pressure and you can enjoy it properly - just my 10 cents or make it 20 cents

There a composition query that I wanted to ask somehow just cant seem to find the picture