[ray]

Took yesterday
1

2

3

4

[ise438]

Very Nice....

[Charlotte]

Nice work Ray, there are some lovely rich colours, textures + shapes in these, well done

#1 is my favourite, altho' I'd lose an inch of sky off the top + clone out the part-sheep on the RH edge Nice composition, but try not to bisect your landscapes by the horizon, i.e. just sky in the top half of the frame. In shots #2-4 there's a lot of sky again, where I'd like to see more of the land, which is where the interest is in these shots.

#2 + #3 are nicely sunlit + have good colour. #4 is in shade + the colours are consequently quite dull. In #1 you can see what I mean about brightness of the colours in the sunlit land (hill + trees) -vs- those in the shaded land (nearby field). You want to try to have the whole scene sunlit, or at least all sunlit OR all in shade, otherwise if you mix the two states in one shot, the WB will be mixed + you'll battle to get the colours correct across the whole image. This is because sunlit areas + areas which are in shade will have two different WB's, so that if you get the colours correct in either the sunlit area or the area which is in shade, then the other part of the image will be thrown out of whack, + you will end up with a colour cast in one part or the other. In this case you've got the green grass of the FG field looking good (with just a hint of blue cast which is characteristic of shade), but the sunlit hill + trees have a distinct yellow cast (which is characteristic of warm sunlight). If you'd gotten those colours correct, then the field in shade would have adopted a (stronger) blue cast. Hope this all makes sense The bottom line is that you want to avoid mixing direct sunlight with shaded areas in a landscape shot, as it plays havoc with the white balance.

These show that you have a good eye for a pic, Ray

[P-E]

#1 & #3 for me

[simpbow]

3 for me not taking away from rest of shots.

[ray]

Thank you all for your kind comment's, ...Ray

[Markulous]

I recognise that hill in #1!

#2's my fav - OK, so I'd probably put the tree more off centre, further up the hill, but minor point. It's the diagonals that make the pic - the tree's the excuse! Too much sky, methinks:


Crop and a little dodge and burn

Originally Posted by Charlotte

You want to try to have the whole scene sunlit, or at least all sunlit OR all in shade, otherwise if you mix the two states in one shot, the WB will be mixed + you'll battle to get the colours correct across the whole image. This is because sunlit areas + areas which are in shade will have two different WB's, so that if you get the colours correct in either the sunlit area or the area which is in shade, then the other part of the image will be thrown out of whack, + you will end up with a colour cast in one part or the other. In this case you've got the green grass of the FG field looking good (with just a hint of blue cast which is characteristic of shade), but the sunlit hill + trees have a distinct yellow cast (which is characteristic of warm sunlight). If you'd gotten those colours correct, then the field in shade would have adopted a (stronger) blue cast. Hope this all makes sense The bottom line is that you want to avoid mixing direct sunlight with shaded areas in a landscape shot, as it plays havoc with the white balance.

Sorry, I just cannot agree with any of this! Lanscapes are about scenery......... and light! Getting differing light in a landscape can turn it from an interesting view into an amazing landscape! And WB? Why will the WB vary according to light levels? WB is about light temperature not intensity!

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by Markulous

Sorry, I just cannot agree with any of this! Lanscapes are about scenery......... and light! Getting differing light in a landscape can turn it from an interesting view into an amazing landscape!

Subtle variations of lighting in a landscape scene can produce a lovely image. However, having one half of the frame in direct sunlight + the other half in shade divides the frame into two different lighting scenarios, which IMHO is not usually very pleasing.

Originally Posted by Markulous

And WB? Why will the WB vary according to light levels? WB is about light temperature not intensity!

You don't agree that direct sunlight produces a different WB to that of shade? I wonder why we have these presents on our cameras then

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Subtle variations of lighting in a landscape scene can produce a lovely image. However, having one half of the frame in direct sunlight + the other half in shade divides the frame into two different lighting scenarios, which IMHO is not usually very pleasing.

Well, like any comp, a 50:50 approach is unlikely to be successful. But patches of light will be. There's no doubt at all that my part-lit landscapes have been 'better' and more popular than full sun or shaded

Originally Posted by Charlotte

You don't agree that direct sunlight produces a different WB to that of shade? I wonder why we have these presents on our cameras then

I'd argue that those presets are for setting to the dominant WB, rather than camera pick on something totally irrelevant (say burned highlights!). Having said that, I shall continue to NOT set my camera's WB except tungsten/fluorescent, flash or the occasional custom

[Les Meehan]

WB wot's that then? RAW rules and then any WB imbalance (get it?) can be sorted later. No reason not to open the same image twice in ACR and set the colours for sun and shade as desired on two versions which can be combined later in PS.

Markulous is right here Charlotte, but I have a suspicion you two may have your wires crossed somewhere. Charlotte, don't get too dogmatic about 'rules' or you will lose the ability to react to your intuitive perception e.g there may be times when a dead-centre horizon is exactly what is required to make a particular scene work even though 98% or judges would then slate the result (wot do they know, rules).

And I too know that darn tree, I used to live in Thornton not far from there, and have a few negs from 25 years ago that look like these images. The tree looks the same now!

Like many 'rules' photographers, it hasn't grown much in the intervening years!

Les

[Charlotte]

Let's back the truck up a little here. I was explaining to Ray why I felt the lighting in his image #1 didn't work for me, + explained how WB is affected by direct sunlight + shade. Markulous then introduced arguments which had no bearing on anything I said (e.g. mentioning "burned highlights" was irrelevant), and in fact ended up agreeing with what I said about the split-down-the-middle lighting; while his replying comment about the WB issue also did not establish a reason to argue with what I'd said. On the contrary, he's arguing about things I didn't even say

My comment refers to this particular image, but somehow it has sparked a general discussion. Don't get me wrong Les, I am not one to follow rules for the sake of following rules. However, they are there for us to use as guidelines + can be useful in explaining a particular point of view on an image, which is what I did here.

Les, your advice about adjusting mixed WB in PP is fine for RAW shooters (if they don't mind the extra work involved) but not everyone shoots RAW + I'm guessing that Ray was shooting jpeg here, in which case WB is a consideration that is relevant at the time of capture.

Ok so I'm feeling a bit like a nose now (being picked on) + I don't want to play this game anymore I gave my opinion on Ray's images + tried to illustrate why I felt that way, I certainly didn't intend to start a general debate. Carry on with it if you like ... without me

[Les Meehan]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Ok so I'm feeling a bit like a nose now (being picked on) + I don't want to play this game anymore I gave my opinion on Ray's images + tried to illustrate why I felt that way, I certainly didn't intend to start a general debate. Carry on with it if you like ... without me

OK, I'm out too then...

PS Charlotte, my comments were for the greater good and not intended as a direct attack on you or your perfectly noteworthy comments/advice to Ray about his images (and I did say I thought you two had crossed wires so was seeing both sides of the coin). Luv ya, friends?