Autumn scene ....advice sought

I've been taking photographs for a long time and am usually (almost invariably) disappointed with the results.

I'm 10 years retired from an exclusively technical career and think I'm a reasonable camera technician but a lousy photographer.
I've read books, trawled the web etc. but have decided to put a few images up here to see if I can get more direct criticism of my efforts.

This is a shot from yesterday..
Looking through the viewfinder I was thinking wow! Reality is something less than that.

I'm reasonably thick-skinned and am looking for any constructive criticism.

How can I improve this shot? Is it even the right shot? or have I made as good a stab as could reasonably be expected of this scene.




davek

You're very much not alone!! I've felt the same, with rare exceptions, about my own photography for nearly 30 years.

In this case, I'd say that there's no particular subject. The foreground and background are both very leafy, giving an overall over-busy effect with nothing really to look at. In particular, when you try to look into the background, it's all more of the same.

Whereas when you're there, you can look around the scene and admire different aspects of it - much harder with a 2D representation.

If it's any consolation, I have hundreds of images like this. Nicely exposed, but otherwise forgettable.

Cut out clutter, is the only thing I'd say. Clutter distracts.

Would this be a situation where, as I've heard some do, to use a telephoto lens within a landscape type shot? To look beyond the immediate foreground we can see here? There appears to be some nice reflections of trees from the far bank. In terms of cutting out clutter as ChrisA has mentioned?

A quick edit.
This is certainly not forgettable, firstly I would recrop at 16/9.
Then look at dynamic range to create more depth, this is a 'way above average' image. Let others class their work as forgettable.
With images like this, you don't need too. It may be classed as plain by some, but like all the great images, less is more

Guys,

Thanks for the feedback. These are exactly the sort of comments that I had hoped for, and have given me food for thought

Glowingblue, to be sure I understand, when you say "look at dynamic range" do you mean increase contrast?

dave k

I think there is quite a difference between what the eye sees and what the camera sees.

In my view less is almost always more, simplicity is often the key to a striking image. And for me that means a clear choice of subject and identifying the essence of a scene. A good composition needs somehwere for the eye to settle or a clear journey for the eye through a scene. A journey for an eye through the scene ending with a place to settle (ideally on one of the 'third' points) is going to work. Add magical lighting and I think that is a good recipe.

I think this is the wrong shot, it is a jumble but not in a pleasing, abstract way. There are a lot of shapes and textures and the light is somewhat harsh, with brightness in the sky (and its reflection) and shaded areas.

The essence of this scene to me is autumn colours reflected. The contrast to be provided by colour (blue/orange is good) and not by whites and blacks. So I would look to convey that idea in a simple way. Just a tree or a whole number of trees and their reflections. The sky has to be attractive: plain blue maybe best here, fluffy clouds OK, a stormy sky OK, but definitely not a flat, dead sky. A 50/50 ratio of sky and pond would be conventional and would work well.

Another way to approach it might be just a simple image of the reflection of a tree.

I think that the concept and exposure is good but IMHO could be improved by a slight change in position.

The natural 'horizon line' is the far bank of the water. By using the 'good old' rule of thirds I would suggest that if you had taken a lower position and placed this line 2/3 up the frame it would then use the water as a natural lead in.
It would also 'expand' the water in the lower frame acting as a 'subject'.

As you are looking 'through a gap' this might also work slightly better in 'portrait' which makes it slightly less 'busy'.



However I have many many images, like this that are okay but could just do with a little sprinkle of pixie dust to make them good. I just wish I had a bag of dust with me when I took them

I like the layering effect you've got resulting from the different position and shades of the leaves. I quite like the framing effect. But the main problem for me arises from this - what it's framing just isn't compelling enough and is overpowered by the f/g (partly because you've probably(?) used a wide focal length - at a guess). Also the rather dark branches in the TLC aren't very attractive.

I too like the framing and 'layering' as Dr Mhuni said - my main suggestion for composition would be lower viewpoint so we feel up close and personal to the water and some leaves floating on it, and maybe a tilt to the right slightly as the horizon looks a bit off.

But also, nothing seems absolutely sharp and crisp. Its a tricky kind of shot to grab handheld as light levels are not all that bright, and you need a fairly small aperture. I think the only way to be sure of getting it really sharp is to use a tripod (which often helps composition too), focus about a third into the scene (approx hyperfocal distance) and set around about f11 or f16 to ensure all elements are reasonably sharp.

You have done one very good thing with your image - the framing in the foreground is generally darker than the background, so our eye doesn't wander out of the image, rather it travels into it. So far so good.

I think some are feeling that, once drawn in like that, they are drawn to nothing particularly different. You could think about a focal point, maybe a bird on the water, or a boat.

But even as it is, the image is pleasant enough and well ordered enough and I personally like it.

I also quite like the original image. It's not exceptional, but it's not bad either. Regarding the edits, I prefer the approach that Ralph has suggested to the one that Karl has, to me the portrait shot with less of the surrounding distractions is more successful for this particular image as it leads the eye in and through much better.

Regards
David

"In this case, I'd say that there's no particular subject." It's also quite hard to photograph woods: they're very "busy" and lack clear lines for composition. Some places/ scenes are lovely to witness in person but do not make good photographic subjects. Imagine the same scene with a Doric temple on the far side of the lake... as at Stourhead.

I've spent the last month busily deleting disappointing, lack-lustre shots from my hard drive... I'll never learn.

I think you have already accepted your limitation. Technically good picture but aesthetically indifferent.

Loads of good advice on here but I'm going to skip to my own immediate thoughts so they are not corrupted by other views...

When you see a picture you like, try to concentrate on what made it so. I think you will eventually come to a common thread that will please you if you try to mimic that style of composition.

Imitation is the sincerest flattery

Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions above.

I've got quite a bit from this.

dave k