-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Fall colors are here
- Thread starter Ron Morse
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Wow!
You're in a great place! how far is this away from where you live? This is going to become only better.
Do you have tree stands with no evergreens?
Asher
You're in a great place! how far is this away from where you live? This is going to become only better.
Do you have tree stands with no evergreens?
Asher
If I walked in a straight line it is 1.6 miles by GPS. By road its about 6 miles. Its starting to look like this everywhere right now. The maples are the reddest I have ever seen this year. I need to look around and find some nice shots.
Its hard to find an area with no evergreens but they do exist.
I wanted to go today but it looked like rain and was quite dark all day. Maybe tomorrow.
Its hard to find an area with no evergreens but they do exist.
I wanted to go today but it looked like rain and was quite dark all day. Maybe tomorrow.
Don Lashier
New member
IMO some of the nicest fall color shots include some evergreen contrast.Ron Morse said:
- DL
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well Ron started us off well. That was October 4th, 3 weeks ago!!
Where are the beautiful panoramas of gold and yellow? Where are the half naked silver birch, the oaks, the maples and the ash?
What's happening in England, Scotland, France, NZ, Auussi-land, Maine, Vermon etc?
Where are the pictures?
My olive tree has beautiful leaves still, the oaks are ill and the leaves are scraggy. Oak root fungus is devastating the forrests here!
Ficus trees are evergreen except for the insects effects. (Cuban thrip especially makes the leaves fold in half and turn black-not very photogenic at all!!
So please, the pictures!
Asher
Where are the beautiful panoramas of gold and yellow? Where are the half naked silver birch, the oaks, the maples and the ash?
What's happening in England, Scotland, France, NZ, Auussi-land, Maine, Vermon etc?
Where are the pictures?
My olive tree has beautiful leaves still, the oaks are ill and the leaves are scraggy. Oak root fungus is devastating the forrests here!
Ficus trees are evergreen except for the insects effects. (Cuban thrip especially makes the leaves fold in half and turn black-not very photogenic at all!!
So please, the pictures!
Asher
Asher,
I'm surrounded by trees, which are doing nothing much colour wise, but a few brown leaves falling. Last year, we had one cold night, a bit later, iirc, and the next day, 2 inches of green leaves on the ground, all trees bare. But, five miles away, it could be different.
Best wishes,
Ray
I'm surrounded by trees, which are doing nothing much colour wise, but a few brown leaves falling. Last year, we had one cold night, a bit later, iirc, and the next day, 2 inches of green leaves on the ground, all trees bare. But, five miles away, it could be different.
Best wishes,
Ray
Erik DeBill
New member
Give us another couple-three weeks. The maples don't turn down here in Texas until some time in November.
On the other hand, my rosebush is blooming like mad
and some of my peppers have just started blooming
I'm sure any southern-hemisphere readers would have even more "unseasonal" color
On the other hand, my rosebush is blooming like mad
and some of my peppers have just started blooming
I'm sure any southern-hemisphere readers would have even more "unseasonal" color
I had told myself to never put up any landscape shots again. But at the risk of embarrassing my self again here goes.
I freely admit that I have no idea what I am doing. I'm 63 and have taken thousands upon thousands of aquarium and horse show pictures. I don't think I have taken 150 landscape shots including the ones I have deleted in my life.
Probably not much.
I freely admit that I have no idea what I am doing. I'm 63 and have taken thousands upon thousands of aquarium and horse show pictures. I don't think I have taken 150 landscape shots including the ones I have deleted in my life.
Probably not much.
For what it's worth, Ron, I like this photo very much.
The successive horizontal lines are calming. The colors look real. Is the lake actually that intensely blue seen with the naked eye? I believe it is. I have seen just that color in a round lake in East Texas--the people of the little community where it is call it, "The Bottomless Lake."
I particularly like the vertical plants in the extreme foreground lefthand corner. Saw them third, after the lovely lines of trees and clouds, and then the beautifully positioned blue lake, which the fall-colored trees brought my eye to.
Mary
The successive horizontal lines are calming. The colors look real. Is the lake actually that intensely blue seen with the naked eye? I believe it is. I have seen just that color in a round lake in East Texas--the people of the little community where it is call it, "The Bottomless Lake."
I particularly like the vertical plants in the extreme foreground lefthand corner. Saw them third, after the lovely lines of trees and clouds, and then the beautifully positioned blue lake, which the fall-colored trees brought my eye to.
Mary
Hi Ron,
Have you got your camera back, or were these before. If its back, does it focus better?
Anyways, I think you problem may be in not being able to find the subject, the reason for the photo. Your fish, you can get up close, your horses, well, I guess thats pretty much a horse and rider. Landscape tends to be fuzzy ( not in your camera, at least if they've fixed it) but the boundaries are fuzzy, shall I take a photo of the tree, or the forest. One red leaf means autumn, a whole forest of orange trees may mean diseased trees.
When I saw this last photo, I was going to direct you to the guy who took the first two here ;-) then I realised it was the same guy.... The first two, brighter colours, more foreground interest. Both have a horizontal line, the river bank, I would perhaps crop them into a more panoramic view, getting rid of the sky, even. If you make a couple of 'L' shaped masks, or cut some rectangles in card to peer through at the image, you will get the idea. Take 'em with you into the country. Its difficult here on my monitor to give a definitive answer, if ever there is one, and I've enough landscapes of my own to work on. However, for your final image, which is 5.25 inches high on my monitor, crop 0.75 inches from the top, and maybe 2 inches from the bottom. It looks better to me. The twigs to the left are too 'twiggy', distracting, and the fir tree, foreground centre right, does not stand out significantly. Maybe, if that was the subject, then ps may help to bring it out.
I think the problem you have is in seeing the image within the view, imagining the final result. I tend to see great views, and use a wideangle lens, then get an image of a ribbon of hills below a big expanse of boring sky, and a foreground consisting of a big expanse of boring countryside. I have a feeling you thought the the house on the lake would be more prominent. It costs you nothing to play with cropping, quickest using cardboard, I reckon, until you get more or less what you want.
It may help, if you get one or two of those cheap disposable party? cameras (I don't mean a nikon) the sort that you send the whole camera off for processing. I think it would concentrate the mind into composing the image, trying to work out the scene before pressing the button. Whatever you're doing now to try and correct it, and you are not happy, then try something else. The scenary is great, your'e great (at least with fish and horses), just got to mesh the two together somehow.
Best wishes,
Ray
Have you got your camera back, or were these before. If its back, does it focus better?
Anyways, I think you problem may be in not being able to find the subject, the reason for the photo. Your fish, you can get up close, your horses, well, I guess thats pretty much a horse and rider. Landscape tends to be fuzzy ( not in your camera, at least if they've fixed it) but the boundaries are fuzzy, shall I take a photo of the tree, or the forest. One red leaf means autumn, a whole forest of orange trees may mean diseased trees.
When I saw this last photo, I was going to direct you to the guy who took the first two here ;-) then I realised it was the same guy.... The first two, brighter colours, more foreground interest. Both have a horizontal line, the river bank, I would perhaps crop them into a more panoramic view, getting rid of the sky, even. If you make a couple of 'L' shaped masks, or cut some rectangles in card to peer through at the image, you will get the idea. Take 'em with you into the country. Its difficult here on my monitor to give a definitive answer, if ever there is one, and I've enough landscapes of my own to work on. However, for your final image, which is 5.25 inches high on my monitor, crop 0.75 inches from the top, and maybe 2 inches from the bottom. It looks better to me. The twigs to the left are too 'twiggy', distracting, and the fir tree, foreground centre right, does not stand out significantly. Maybe, if that was the subject, then ps may help to bring it out.
I think the problem you have is in seeing the image within the view, imagining the final result. I tend to see great views, and use a wideangle lens, then get an image of a ribbon of hills below a big expanse of boring sky, and a foreground consisting of a big expanse of boring countryside. I have a feeling you thought the the house on the lake would be more prominent. It costs you nothing to play with cropping, quickest using cardboard, I reckon, until you get more or less what you want.
It may help, if you get one or two of those cheap disposable party? cameras (I don't mean a nikon) the sort that you send the whole camera off for processing. I think it would concentrate the mind into composing the image, trying to work out the scene before pressing the button. Whatever you're doing now to try and correct it, and you are not happy, then try something else. The scenary is great, your'e great (at least with fish and horses), just got to mesh the two together somehow.
Best wishes,
Ray
Thanks Mary. You are very kind.
Ray,
I think that you hit the nail on the head "I think the problem you have is in seeing the image within the view, imagining the final result ". I just don't have that artistic eye. I'm not sure that a person can develope it if they don't have it.
I took these just before I sent the 20D in to Canon.
The first pictures that you refer to were some of the few that I was satified with. The first more so than the second. Oh and I took then with my cousins new D80.
My camera should be back the first of next week. And I have a WhiBal coming.
I feel like giving up on the landscape but I know that I should keep plugging away.
I appreciate the advice. Thanks.
Ray,
I think that you hit the nail on the head "I think the problem you have is in seeing the image within the view, imagining the final result ". I just don't have that artistic eye. I'm not sure that a person can develope it if they don't have it.
I took these just before I sent the 20D in to Canon.
The first pictures that you refer to were some of the few that I was satified with. The first more so than the second. Oh and I took then with my cousins new D80.
My camera should be back the first of next week. And I have a WhiBal coming.
I feel like giving up on the landscape but I know that I should keep plugging away.
I appreciate the advice. Thanks.
Ron, Ray's detailed critique certainly proves to be true what I said to Asher about my own efforts to work with his RAW file of "Boy on a Bicycle." . I mean, what I said about not being able to trust my own artistic judgment. Here's the link to that post:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12281#post12281
I like this picture of yours. I thought your subject was the lake. And I simply liked it.
But, what do I know? I liked my red maple tree top in the corner of my blue sky with white clouds, too. It's over in the Entry Digital Photography at present:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12231#post12231
And Asher's advice to me is to re-shoot it and try to get the whole tree--or to go out and find a landscape similar to yours to shoot. I know where one is--but transport is my problem. I don't drive the freeways.
Meanwhile, please don't be discouraged. I know that you have the artist's eye. I know you can get more landscape photos that please your own meticulous taste.
Mary
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12281#post12281
I like this picture of yours. I thought your subject was the lake. And I simply liked it.
But, what do I know? I liked my red maple tree top in the corner of my blue sky with white clouds, too. It's over in the Entry Digital Photography at present:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12231#post12231
And Asher's advice to me is to re-shoot it and try to get the whole tree--or to go out and find a landscape similar to yours to shoot. I know where one is--but transport is my problem. I don't drive the freeways.
Meanwhile, please don't be discouraged. I know that you have the artist's eye. I know you can get more landscape photos that please your own meticulous taste.
Mary
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ron,
I looked at your very first image again this moring with Jennifer Donnely, well trained in art and curating. She and I agree that there is merit. I think that the picture had grat depth. Part of this is the apparently intidy "twiggy" twigs in the foreground. I think, however, to do this anchoring in the foreground, only 1/3 of that is needed.
So, you might look at that same image with lower part removed just a tiny tad below the junction of the water with the forground.
Try it just for interest sake.
With a horse, or a fish, ad Ray points out, you see a whole thing and your framing contains it in a balanced way. The cardboard cutout is a great idea. I scout pictures that way, but do the framing with my two thumbs and forefingers, each set at right angles, put together as a rectangle. For a panorama, the cardboard cutout is really useful.
The trick to develop is the ability to recognize, what constitutes a "whole thing", even if it is not the "whole thing"!
You are perfectly capable of doing this because you have the photographic technic and the ability to compose well. It is just that you need excercise in ideas of what, to you, constitutes a unit of landscape.
If you cut it so it appears incomplete, then there's a problem, as with Mary's tree and sky fragments.
Not that it is ever even ever necessary to capture the whole of anything, but what you do choose, should, at this stage at least, seem to be one compostional unit that is satisfying.
Asher
I looked at your very first image again this moring with Jennifer Donnely, well trained in art and curating. She and I agree that there is merit. I think that the picture had grat depth. Part of this is the apparently intidy "twiggy" twigs in the foreground. I think, however, to do this anchoring in the foreground, only 1/3 of that is needed.
So, you might look at that same image with lower part removed just a tiny tad below the junction of the water with the forground.
Try it just for interest sake.
With a horse, or a fish, ad Ray points out, you see a whole thing and your framing contains it in a balanced way. The cardboard cutout is a great idea. I scout pictures that way, but do the framing with my two thumbs and forefingers, each set at right angles, put together as a rectangle. For a panorama, the cardboard cutout is really useful.
The trick to develop is the ability to recognize, what constitutes a "whole thing", even if it is not the "whole thing"!
You are perfectly capable of doing this because you have the photographic technic and the ability to compose well. It is just that you need excercise in ideas of what, to you, constitutes a unit of landscape.
If you cut it so it appears incomplete, then there's a problem, as with Mary's tree and sky fragments.
Not that it is ever even ever necessary to capture the whole of anything, but what you do choose, should, at this stage at least, seem to be one compostional unit that is satisfying.
Asher
Hi Ron,
I'm glad Asher came back on the crop aspect, and had another viewer too. I went back and had another slide around on the screen. If, in that first image, you crop away much of the sky (If the Image is 5 1/8 inch high, you keep the bottom 3 3/4 inches) - the triangle of sky, is the same size/shape as the triangle of water - it starts to become interesting. I bet you never saw that when you were stood out there....
Best wishes,
Ray
I'm glad Asher came back on the crop aspect, and had another viewer too. I went back and had another slide around on the screen. If, in that first image, you crop away much of the sky (If the Image is 5 1/8 inch high, you keep the bottom 3 3/4 inches) - the triangle of sky, is the same size/shape as the triangle of water - it starts to become interesting. I bet you never saw that when you were stood out there....
Best wishes,
Ray
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Great point Ray!
Why didn't I think of that!
Asher
Why didn't I think of that!
Asher
Doug Lloyd
New member
You may not have taken many but these are some very pretty ones,
Doug
Doug