Surrey Gardens

Not the most enticing title for the thread I appreciate, but there's plenty to appreciate at these 3 very special locations in different corners of the county. I've pulled together shots from a few different visits.

Firstly views of the lake at Claremont, near Esher.
All taken with the K7 and DA 18-55 WR, f8.0, iso 100
















Here's a slight crop in on that one :







The next two are at Canazarro Park, nr Wimbledon Common :
K7 & Samyang 14mm f2.8, f8.0, iso 100















This last one is at Polesden Lacy, nr Leatherhead : K7 & DA 18-55 WR







Thanks for checking them out, all comments and ideas gratefully received!

"all comments and ideas gratefully received! "

Phew, because I'll be brutally honest ......


The locations are obviously scenic enough and complex enough to provide a huge opportunity for some inspiring and diverse photographic snappings, but what you've presented here is a total failure to capitalise upon those opportunities.

These are all just bland, flat snapshots taken from the standing up head height perspective and there's nothing bold to excite anyone.

Every shot misses some obvious artistic compositional fundamentals. And on this I'll give you two examples:

1] The Amphora teapot fountain shot. Look around the edges of this shot and there's some much visually clumsy stuff distracting. The windows on the building the left, the bits of tree sticking into the frame on the right, the curves of the fountain pool itself are cropped in a haphazard way. IMO this shot should have been taken with a wider FOV and then cropped down to ensure the extremities didn't artistically result in a clumsy distraction to the central subject, the amphora teapot itself



2] The "Single tree in a field" shot ( the last image ). "Single tree in a field" shots are cheesy at the best of times, but with this one the composition is out of wack. The top of the tree and the right of the tree are cropped off. If you MUST add to the world library of already existing 100 trillion "single tree in a field" shots ehn IMO I would suggest shooting a wider FOV again and cropping to something that looks artistically acceptable without cropping off bits of the tree

As an overall constructive criticism, and noting your generally technical approach to photography, I would suggest trying a less technical more gut feeling approach combined with a more diverse range of perspectives.

For example go on shoots wearing clothes that you don't mind getting dirty knees. Lay on the floor and snap, climb on fences or wade in the fountain and snap, take pictures of the geese with a narrow DOF.

In fact the geese shots are a good example of the benefits of narrower DOF shooting. Often the narrower the DOF the more actual perceived depth an image has. The brain is used to this, particular with nearfield subjects like the geese in your example. by trying to get everything in focus from 1m to infinity you end up with an images that has no depth.

Your "Single tree in a field shot" would be much better IMO if the wooded area in the background and the grassy foreground were out of focus as it would have given depth to the shot

For some of the shots, varying the DoF would help direct the eye to what you consider interesting. In the penultimate shot, eg, I find my eye flitting from the house to the garden. Where is the zone of interest? It may not always be feasible - eg if you are with family - but taking a tripod might help on many occasions, if only because it'll make everything a useful bit slower and more considered. There are some great arboretums within your area -- particularly over the next few weeks when the colours in the leaves are at their peak, why not try to visit one and experiment away with DoF and composition?

I lived in Surrey for many years so I know all the places you've photographed. It is not always easy to translate their beauty from three dimensions into two. But I suspect you need to further develop a 'way of seeing' to do them proper justice.

The first picture for me needs most of the foreground grass cropping off to make the grass and water meet at the bottom right hand of the image, this is because I think you are trying to show us the lake and surrounding scenery, yet almost half the image shows us the grass at your feet.
The second image and the crop of it do nothing for me, if you are going to photograph birds they need to be the main subject and facing you, perhaps as Smeggy suggested getting down low and close would have made for a more interesting shot, I also know these things are nasty little blighters and more suited to the dinner table than pictures I also notice that in the distance the nicley rounded hillside with its footpaths may have made an interesting shot.
The teapot fountain again for me needs a big chunk cropping of the bottom but also needs a something adding to right : to my eye there just seems something missing.
The next image nicely framed with the overhanging branches colors very vibrant maybe too much for some, but I like it, yet once again for me the shot is spoiled slightly by the fact that a good third of the picture is the grass at your feet and a driveway, I would guess when you saw that scene you thought nice house, flowers, background etc. I doubt you looked at that drive and thought Hmmmmm nice But maybe you did :
The last image well despite Smeggys views on the 100 trillion images of a single tree in a field shots, I have to say I have seen what to me are some absolutely beautiful images of single trees in a field, sadly Nigel this is not one of them, you have managed to chop the top and sides off, I also think the background would distract from the typical single tree shot, maybe a change of position getting down lower, using your 14mm.
All in all Nigel the shots all look well exposed, they don't look overly processed and they all look level enough, the rest is just personal choice if you like them then that's what counts.

All the best......Jim.

It's not often I've agreed with Smeggy on this Forum but on this occasion, I think he has summarised it very well.

I would recommend similarly, forget about the technicalities, go out there with your camera and shoot instinctively. I actually don't think the locations have helped you here, there is too little of interest in the foregrounds, apart from the amphora one which as has been said above is too cluttered.

I would normally recommend shooting landscape with a tripod, but in this case I would do the opposite as I think a tripod would force you back into a more technical approach.

The processing is very precise, no particular observations here except that the last one has a bit too much yellow which makes the grass and trees look a little unnatural. For each shot my honest observations are:

1 There is too much bland foreground in this - it needs something to lead the eye into the image and the result is that it looks 'flat'. The light hasn't helped, it is quite harsh and directional. For a scene such as this one the early morning or evening light would be much better - I can appreciate you can only shoot what's in front of you but maybe it would be an idea to force yourself to go to places like this early or late?

2 & 3 These similarly to image 1. Although there is more foreground interest, the Geese don't serve the purpose of leading the eye into the image and in fact tend to distract the eye away

4 A decent idea, but shot from the wrong angle and needs shallower DOF plus more breathing space around the subject

5 I really think this one is a bit of a missed opportunity! There is so much of interest in this location, but it hasn't been used! Personally I always avoid overhanging 'unconnected' branches as to me they don't look right. I think getting closer to some foreground detail would have helped as well as a lower perspective. I do like the processing on this one - it is sharp and detailed with good colours.

6 I'm not sure what this one was trying to be - it falls in between. A tree on its own requires no distractions, if it's in the context of a wooded landscape then other nearby trees in the composition are essential, but this one is neither one nor the other. As mentioned above, I don't think the colour balance is quite right on this one.

Thanks for posting these Nigel and opening yourself up to the comments, I hope we are providing useful constructive criticism and that you can see it this way.

Regards
David

Thanks for posting these photos, I appreciate the advice too!

The thing that bothers me particularly about your outdoor shots is that the colours are quite bizarre. It doesn't have to be this way because somewhere you posted some interior flash shots and the colour was perfectly normal on those.

I think a useful exercise would be to set your camera to JPEG and sRGB and Normal colour style and shoot a whole day's photography. Use AWB or Daylight. After that, see what the camera thinks colour should look like and you'll hopefully see how far adrift your exterior shots can be.

Hope that helps.

Oh dear, I think I went wrong with that invitation! Can I retract it? It seems you opened the floodgates there Smeggy

You need have no fear there David ... I know what to expect by now I've probably given more than I take, and my own criticisms of others work is often forensic to say the least I guess you all realise I'm fairly thick-skinned about all this.

I am really flattered that my shots should generate such detailed commentary and thoughtful suggestions, and its clearly of use to many others as well - that's what its all about, so bring it on ! I admit, I don't regard these particular images as anything special creatively, and I accept every point made and will look at applying the ideas if possible.

Unfortunately, my own reality for now is that any dedicated photographic excursion is not possible - these images, and most of my shots, are taken as my arm is being pulled or I'm shouted at that its time to move on, and sadly there are other special demands constantly there to worry about apart from the photography. But I live in hope that one day the weather and an opportunity will coincide.

Actually, I did have another visit to Polesden Lacy over the summer, and
I think some of those shots may have some more interesting viewpoints and angles, so I'm going to crack on with those and thrill you all with those very soon ! In any case, I thought the K7 did a fine job with these shots and was a very reliable tool.

I must say though, I'm delighted that no one has seen any patches of colour noise or moire on my shots, so thats a real achievement ....

I find it hard to have my pictures criticised when I think I have produced a thing of beauty but in these pictures, to my eye, they are a little over exposed but that may be your thing or mine. Everything else has been said.

I agree with the colour being slightly off. If these are straight out the camera, so to speak. If you created it that way that's your call 'cos it's your pic

A curse on anyone who doesn't love my favourite pics

Nigel, you are one of the few who have commented when I have posted outdoor shots, and you have always given me some helpful suggestions that I have agreed would improve them.

However, it therefore mystifies me, but I have to agree with John regarding the colour of your outdoor images - often they seem to be over-saturated, particularly in yellow/orange tones. E.g. I would have expected the garden shot to look something like this -




Is the effect in your images being produced by your camera settings, or in your processing, and is that the appearance that you prefer, or could it be anything to do with monitor settings?

Philip

I think any colour issues are probably the result of me using a number of different processes, as I enjoy experimenting with processing, and maybe the odd colourspace discrepency. I've got hundreds of images from the K7 without any problems, so it tends to be on those that I've carried out more detailed work on. So I guess I need to 'KISS'.

I like the improvement to the pathway in your version there Philip, although its introduced a slight magenta cast in areas above, but it could be controlled selectively of course. But colour interpretation is a funny thing it seems - I mean David Storm for example has often pointed out 'unnatural' colours to me but in this particular Canazzaro Park image he liked the colours. But I can see a bit too much yellow, yes certainly.

Thanks for your input again.

I've had similar nightmares with colour, Nigel, which is why these days I tend to shoot using one of the white balance presets in Raw+ mode. I just use the jpegs unless I really need to go back to the Raw file.

I agree with the previous comments on composition. Try visualizing the scene as an abstract composition of shapes.