[Charlotte]

Here is a landscape with a few interesting contours + some colour ... and a bleak sky I can't seem to fix. All comments are welcome, + if anyone can fix the sky, that'd be great

[fionaB]

thats lovely charlotte.......... not sure what u mean about "fix" the sky. what are u looking for to be done?

fi

[Charlotte]

Thanks fi. The sky looks feeble, I'd like to bring the clouds out + deepen the blue. As it is, the pic is unbalanced re: colour - lots of colour in the land (except haze in the distance) but the sky is pale + insignificant. I tried altering contrast, levels, saturation etc., but couldn't get it right.

[danpen]

Nice landscape, look like it was a beautiful day.

I've had a go at the sky ...



Use Select Color Range to select the sky, pasted in a duplicate of the sky on a new layer set to Multiply, then tweaked that new layer with some levels adjustments 'til I was happy.

Finally, I think there was a bit of a green colour cast across the image so I used a curve and color balance layer to get to reduce the green content.

hope you like

cheers

Dan

[Charlotte]

Thanks Dan, I think you're right about the green cast - I suspect that was me while I was boosting the colour a bit LOL.

I'm still getting to grips with image correction, + I forget about using layers

The sky looks slightly better in yours dan, but I wouldn't mind a bit more detail + colour there, if anyone else wants to have a go.

[Rob Barron]

I've tried to maintain some of the contrast in order to keep a sense of depth and separation between the FG flowers and the midd ground area.

I selected the sky, feathered it, duplicated onto a new layer and used Overlay blending mode at 75% opacity. I then did the same again. A touch of burning in to give it depth and not seem flat and then flattened together.

See what you think.
Cheers,
Rob

[skipper954]

Hi Charlotte

I am going to ignore the sky here, since the guys are doing a good job with it.

In coming back to this image several times, I am struck by its flatness. Not tonal, but flatness of form. There is nothing until the far trees and hills to give the image any height. From my point of view, it then becomes a bit boring. The large expanse of grass adds to the uniformity and disinterest.

I do like the lines. My eye keeps wanting to complete the triangle of the grass, and that, I think, is good.

To me, a landscape is different than any other type of image. It usually is not dynamic. It usually does not tell a story. It's primary purpose is to appeal visually to the eye.

Many times when we shoot a landscape, the visual appeal is related to the emotion of being in that place. And that emotion must be translated to the uninvolved viewer.

So, in a landscape, we have either a mind-blowing visual, or the transfer of the emotion of the place or both. For me this image has neither.

skip

skip

[Rob Barron]

I do like the visual impact of this shot, I like the lovely foreground detail and then the contrasts as it goes back, through the fairly plain light green area (which yes, I'd prefer to be a bit less deep but that is what was there, and the natural slopes of the hills beyond so that the lines are not all horizontal. I must say though my favourite is the bottom half of the picture. Really evokes memories of many a lovely walk in the English countryside

[skipper954]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

I must say though my favourite is the bottom half of the picture. Really evokes memories of many a lovely walk in the English countryside

Exactly my point. Thanks Rob

[Charlotte]

Thanks for your pimp, Rob + for your subsequent kind comments (to soften the blow of skip's, I think )

Skip, many thanks for commenting. Your comments would be more helpful if you would also suggest how to correct the negative aspects which you pointed out (like 'flat' + 'boring' LOL), which would then make it really useful constructive criticism However, your simply pointing out the flaws did get me thinking which can't be a bad thing

Having digested your comments + further studied the photo myself, I have to agree that you are quite right in what you say, but the question is how could I get the depth + feeling that is lacking in this pic? I have a suspicion that there is no simple answer + that this is a combination of factors, + something that comes with experience. One thing occurs to me which could affect this problem - and a recent comment on another of my pic's, so I'm beginning to see a pattern here - is that there isn't one particular subject or small area representing a focal point. Something for me to watch.

Thanks skip for your input - even if you didn't provide me with the solution, your comments have certainly given me food for thought

[skipper954]

Hi Charlotte

Doing a critique without sounding harsh isn't easy sometimes. And I know that you take it in the spirit in which it was given, and I appreciate that.

But you see, Rob was responding at least partially to the transfer of emotion. And of course, that is very valid. If I grew up in the UK, I would feel the same way.

It is so much easier to identify the problems and leave the solutions to others.

I mean, look at politicians the world over.

You do make a good point, Charlotte, and if I can, I will try to give solutions, but sometimes the answer is to take a better picture.

In this case, maybe a tight crop left and bottom to focus the eye on the "path" to the hills. I know, that would destroy the feeling you were trying to get with the contours of the land, but it would focus on the far hills because the green space would lead into it. Would this be a better picture? I don't know.

Again, that is what this forum is all about, and I revel in the give and take.
skip

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by skipper954

... I know that you take it in the spirit in which it was given ...

Absolutely, skip

Originally Posted by skipper954

... sometimes the answer is to take a better picture ...

How to take a better picture is the question, not the answer

I've just come up with what I think may be the answer with this pic, + thought I'd share it here, for others who may be battling with landscapes :

I think the main cause of lack of depth here is the light - it is a hard light from overhead, i.e. wrong time of day. You can tell that the field is full of texture, but this has not come out well + there's no detail in it. Side lighting, i.e. earlier or later in the day, would've produced much better results.

Comments are welcome on this point, whether anyone thinks I'm on the right track here.

[skipper954]

Good point Charlotte. It would be interesting if you could go to the same place when the sun is low and compare the shots.

skip