Norfolk sky (frank critique requested)

Elines

Elines

Well-Known Member
Registered
Some background ....

I rarely post landscapes (or comment on them) as not been my thing.

However, I want to change my processing method as (following my fallow period) I have become very sloppy eg making overall, standard changes rather than deliberate, considered ones

So I am revisiting Martin's Contrast Grading approach - which I looked at ages ago but never took onboard - as it specifically requires a focused approach

I decided to use a landscape image (that I took about 9 years ago and never processed) to help me have a fresh approach/look.

My aim was to try and bring out texture and contrast in the foreground and sky, plus generally making it lighter towards the horizon (which is what I think you do with a landscape).

I think I've made a fair stab at this, but - to me - the image is missing something - ?is this primarily composition eg no point of interest. Or it may be that the image is actually ok and it's my lack of confidence on landscapes that is my problem.

I added a cold tone to help give a feeling of bleakness/winter - ?may not be necessary?

Anyway ..... critique invited as, although I enjoyed applying Martin's approach, I want to end up with something I like - and not got there with this one.

_MG_4618 CG test 6 copy for fianl stuff mounted.jpg
 
I think this is probably one of those landscapes that look better in colour. You have not processed it badly, it looks OK it just does not make me want to keep looking. I think there is so much going on with the clouds etc (but nothing really interesting) and there is nowhere to focus. This is a nice background needing a foreground/focal point. I've shot loads like this (and probably still will!) just keep it in mind next time or use is as a nice background for another image (I'd tempted to add some birds or a funky tree and add a bit more foreground if it is still there)...I hope that helps!:)
 
I like it very much, Chris. I think it's well processed, nicely textured with the only possible negative being that it could be argued that the sky has had a bit too much structure dialled in. I take Steve's comments onboard, but it is a Norfolk scene, and the feature that is most prominent in Norfolk is those big, wide, open skies, and flat, quite featureless landscapes. Compositionally, maybe there's not quite enough landscape at the bottom? I like the way the textures work in B&W, I don't want to see it in colour. I see exactly what you had in mind.
 
I like this a lot. It has just enough at the bottom to ground the composition. Had it had more at the base, it would have become a featureless landscape and needed some FG interest as Steve mentioned. As it is, it's an image of the sky rather than the landscape. The processing for me is spot on and I particularly like the way that the reducing size and increase in brightness of the clouds towards the horizon gives the composition depth. For me it is well seen (and presented).
 
Thanks John

Gives me some confidence on what I am doing - although to be fully open, in a sense I am simply following what Martin says to do.

My issue was I didn’t know if his specific advice on the images he was using applied to the one I was processing.

Thanks also Toby

I cropped some foreground to help put emphasis on the sky, so there is scope to add some back if I decide that’s needed/puts me on notice to consider this more than I did.

Re too much sky processing….. this is precisely the kind of thing for which I have no ‘feeling’ - I guess it’s a case of doing more and getting there bit by bit

All comments are helping to get my head round what I would want to do with a landscape so the more the merrier for me :)
 
I like the the dramatic sky framed by the lower ground. It looks apart and kind special.
 
I agree with Steve, it needs a focal point. A church spire exactly on the horizon is my thinking, and that to be the darkest tone on the print to make it stand out. Apart from that it is a very restful scene and would happily put it on my living room wall.
 
I like the image and the processing. The B&W looks great but think it would also be interesting in colour.
 
Thanks for the further feedback - I’m feeling I’m in the right track but consistency is likely to be a problem for me - subtly is not my strong point:( :)
 
Works for me Chris. I have been thinking more about abstracts recently so the lack of a prominent subject doesn't bother me. There are plenty of tonal range and differences of texture that seem to me central to abstracts working. Nick Carver has suggested a rule-of-fifths as an alternative to the rule-of-thirds for landscapes and I think putting the horizon a fifth of the way up the frame might work well in this case. Yours to use or lose.
 
Last edited:
Glenn said:
Works for me Chris. I have been thinking more about abstracts recently so the lack of a prominent subject doesn't bother me. There are plenty of tonal range and differences of texture that seem to me central to abstracts working. . Nick Carver has suggested a rule-of-fifths as an alternative to the rule-of-thirds for landscapes and I think putting the horizon a fifth of the way up the frame might work well in this case. Yours to use or lose.
Click to expand...
I could never understand why some people have to invent meaningless rules for landscape composition. If someone said the ideal cornflake breakfast was 187 individual flakes, would you count out individually? Of course you wouldn't. You would tip the flakes in the bowl until the amount looked right. And it's the same with landscape photography. You look at the subject through the viewfinder, move in or out a bit, tilt the camera up or down a bit, and when everything looks right you take the picture. What does it matter if the horizon happens to fall on a third, or a fifth, or even thirteen sixtyfourths?
You should respond intuitively to the subject, not bend the subject to fit a meaningless rule. And you don't even need to think consciously when you take photographs. Just press the shutter when everything intuitively "seems right".
But you do need to develop a swivelling eyeball technique, to look all round the viewfinder, to take everything in. Everything in the photograph has a degree of importance.
 
Alan Clark said:
I could never understand why some people have to invent meaningless rules for landscape composition. If someone said the ideal cornflake breakfast was 187 individual flakes, would you count out individually? Of course you wouldn't. You would tip the flakes in the bowl until the amount looked right. And it's the same with landscape photography. You look at the subject through the viewfinder, move in or out a bit, tilt the camera up or down a bit, and when everything looks right you take the picture. What does it matter if the horizon happens to fall on a third, or a fifth, or even thirteen sixtyfourths?
You should respond intuitively to the subject, not bend the subject to fit a meaningless rule. And you don't even need to think consciously when you take photographs. Just press the shutter when everything intuitively "seems right".
But you do need to develop a swivelling eyeball technique, to look all round the viewfinder, to take everything in. Everything in the photograph has a degree of importance.
Click to expand...
If there was a "like" button, I would press it twice.
 
OK, that's me told but ... well ... may I ask if you tried it? :cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top