Hi ZipedX –
I received the PM that you sent, and here are some of my thoughts on your image.
However, before I speak in detail about your image, let me make a few general comments.
Specifically, on an internet forum like this, making suggestions about how to “correct” what appear to be obvious technical flaws in an image is a surprisingly difficult task. Suggesting other types of “improvements” to an image e.g., selection of subject, composition (including viewpoint, cropping, field of view, removing unwanted elements, etc.), lighting (which includes time-of-day as well as added light), costuming, makeup, etc. is an even more difficult task. In both cases, the difficulty commonly arises because the person who posted the image didn’t give sufficient information about their intent, and may not have even thought explicitly about what they want their image to look like, to what use it will be put, etc.
As an extreme example, some years ago, a fellow on another photography discussion group posted an image of a landscape in which the apparent subject was somewhat out of focus (OOF). He asked for suggestions on how to improve the image. Assuming that he was almost a rank beginner, I wrote a nice response about how to focus a camera. He was annoyed because he felt that he was way beyond that level of expertise and was trying to give the scene a dreamy, “soft-focus” look similar to some images that he had seen. Of course, there was no way I (or anyone else) could have known that. In a similar vein, I’ve seen many examples where one eventually learns that someone is trying to make a scene look like it was photographed at night by simply underexposing it, but initially says nothing about their goal. There are dozens more examples like these in the technical domain, and a much larger number dealing with less mechanistic aspects of producing an image that meets the photographer’s expectations.
W.r.t. the landscape you posted, technically, you did a very reasonable job. You produced a sharp image. You exposed it very well (ie, low contrast with no blown highlights and no impenetrable shadows), but not dramatically, ie, in such a way that one could easily change it in PP (post processing) to appear either bright and sunny, dark and moody, rainy, or just about anything you want. With respect to composition, there are not any obvious extraneous elements in it (eg, kids photo-bombing, blurred cars whizzing by in front of the camera, trash, etc.). So, because there are so many possibilities, any suggestions that I or anyone else might make will only reflect what *we* would do with your image, not how you might want it to look.
If you are uncertain how to describe the sort of look you would like this image to have, just go to Google Images (or equivalent), find a couple of photos that you like of similar areas, and post their URLs. Then, we probably can tell you what you might do to achieve a similar look.
For example, for some audiences (eg, your family, a postcard, etc.), I would probably prefer a more wowie-zowie HDR like version that was brighter, with more contrast, more saturated colors, and more “drama” in the clouds, so I came up with something like this (before and after versions):
OTOH, for all I know, you might prefer any of a million other options, eg, a version with my efx turned down by 50%, a late-afternoon version with warm, long shadows, or even a soft, dreamy, romantic look – only you can say.
Outside of the mechanical/technical aspects, with respect to composition, your photo reminds me of a style of landscape painting composition from the 1800’s, eg, John Constable's "Wivenhoe Park", or George Inness’ “The Lackawanna Valley” where the "subject" is much less obvious:
However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, personally, I would prefer a different arrangement of the buildings relative to the background. Perhaps, you should consider making one of the buildings significantly more prominent than the others, with “leading lines” leading the viewer’s eye around the picture, and with a camera viewpoint closer to the ground so that the foreground flowers are much larger.
Realistically, the work involved in trying to simulate a different composition in PS is too difficult, so if you want to try something like that, and since you apparently pass by that area frequently, it’s probably much easier for you to simply take more photographs of this scene.
Finally, let me suggest that with respect to landscape composition, you simply Google {landscape composition} and read some of the many excellent articles already written on that subject, e.g.,
http://photoinf.com/General/Lee_Frost/The_Art_of_Composition_-_Landscape.htm
- - - THE ART OF COMPOSITION - Landscape
http://photoinf.com/General/Johannes_Vloothuis/landscape_composition_rules.html
- - - Photography Composition Articles: Landscape Composition Rules.
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...-landscape-photography-and-how-to-break-them/
- - -The 10 Commandments of Landscape Photography (and how to break them)
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/04/12/10-rules-of-photo-composition-and-why-they-work/
- - - 10 rules of photo composition (and why they work)
http://www.photographymad.com/pages/view/10-top-photography-composition-rules
- - - 10 Top Photography Composition Rules
http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/3372/18-composition-rules-for-photos-that-shine/
- - - 18 Composition Rules For Photos That Shine
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/h7dfrceh/5-easy-composition-guidelines.html#
- - - 5 Easy Composition Guidelines from Nikon
http://www.naturephotographers.net/np101/gt0804-1.html
- - - Landscape Photography
http://digital-photography-school.c...trated-with-pictures-from-eastern-washington/
- - - 10 Landscape Composition Tips
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/composition-2.shtml
- - - Composition (Part 2)
Anyway, I’ve rambled on way too much.
Cheers,
Tom M
