View Full Version : Do these work?

17th September 2008, 07:16 PM
Two similar images, I'm not convinced by either but could be swayed to believe otherwise, I'm interested to hear the views of the forum.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/The_South_Downs20080413_1352.JPG (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/8268)

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/The_South_Downs20080413_1351.JPG (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/8267)


17th September 2008, 07:38 PM

I looked at these two and I first chose the second image then hesitated and looked again:confused: and questioned why I jumped to the second.

After a while I realised what it was - the striking thing about both is the sky of course. The differences are that the high cloud (forgot the name) is creating a focal point with the Cumulus clouds pushing forward in the image as if they were driven by an explosive force. The foreground is simpler and therefore does not distract from the sky.

I like both images and in particular because the B/W treatment tends to provide an atmosphere (excuse the pun:)) that would be lost if colours were applied.

Just one point though, if the clouds could be enhanced further, similar to photo 1, then this would IMHO improve the drama of the scene.

Thanks for sharing your ideas. All these submissions provide stimulus when I go out on a shoot.


Nick Temple-Fry
17th September 2008, 08:02 PM
I think I want the sky to loom over me so I need more 'up top' or less 'down below'. To me the land/hills aren't that interesting, but the oppressing effects of the clouds are.

So I rate them as a good idea, well shot, but slightly let down by the composition.

For me the 2'nd is the better - less distraction from the ground and of course that marvellous cloud effect.


17th September 2008, 08:33 PM
No2 works really well, No1 doesn't work at all.

The elements are all there in no1, great sky, interesting shapes to the land with dynamic, sweeping curves and great tone and texture. But nothing gels, nothing compliments or opposes.

No 2 however, distills these elements to create order out of chaos. The contrasting field systems no longer compete against each other, with just one now dominating. The sky, too, focuses attention to that "exploding cloud," which in shape echoes the land below.

The secret of successful landscapes is quite often to simplify the composition to include only what's relevant and relate the main elements to each other, whether it be in harmony or discord, creating a mood of calm or tension.

No 2 does just that, No 1 doesn't.

17th September 2008, 10:33 PM
It looks to me as if shot 1 is either a crop of shot 2 or shot from the same viewpoint, at almost the same time judging by the clouds, but with a longer focal length. I like both shots but the drama in the sky of the second shot makes it the winner in my eyes :)



18th September 2008, 06:55 AM
Thanks to all, I'm grateful for the constructive comments, many good points raised which I will to take on board.

One thing I think we all agree on is No2 is more agreeable than No1.



18th September 2008, 10:46 AM
I prefer the second as well. Crop the bottom though to turn this into a full on "SkyScape"

One thing I find really useful for clouds is to view them in Picassa and use the "Filtered B&W" on the "Effects" tab to get a quick (but Good) idea of what filter brings out the features in the clouds to the best advantage.

Perhaps other people have different ways of quickly assessing filter effects and would share their tips. I use Picassa because it's quick and FREE


18th September 2008, 12:11 PM
Thanks Graham, an interesting idea, I'll take a look tonight and see what a "skyscape" will look like.

As for B&W, I always shoot in RAW and convert using ACR, it sounds similar to Picassa in so far as there is a tab that enables B&W conversion via a tick box followed by multi coloured sliders if you need to play with tones etc.The downside of ACR is that it is most certianly not free!