PDA

View Full Version : Lake Roman



Roman Kurywczak
01-29-2009, 03:14 PM
Hi All.....first let me encourage all of you to not just look.....but comment good or bad....as this helps all of us as photographers to learn and expriment with different ideas and points of view. Try to comment on as many images as you can and you will find that others will comment on your images.

This is one of those times when even I question did I go too far!!!
For those of you who have been there......this is not a composite. This is a 1 frame image with help in the field. the lake you are looking at is my creation.....only a very small puddle in the depression of the rocks. I am laying on the ground with the camera resting on the ground. The boulder you see in the FG is actually a pretty small rock......and there is the question........did I go too far??? For those of you who haven't been there......this may look quite natural.......but without a ton of help from me........totally impossible. the puddle wouldn't even be deep enough if I didn't dam up the right side of the depression. What is acceptable to you?

Canon Mark 3 with the 17-40mm lens at 27mm at f22 for 1/40 sec. at ISO 200 resting on a rice bag on the floor and a lee circular polariser.

susanschermer
01-29-2009, 03:33 PM
OK, Roman, you asked for it. IMHO there is far too much going on in this scene. If there was a real reflection there might be a reason to include the water. As it is the snow, red rock, and the sky could be worked into a lovely simple composition. The rock does nothing for the image and the low angle cuts off the red rocks of Arches NP (am I correct?) I think you are testing your constituency.;)

Roman Kurywczak
01-29-2009, 03:39 PM
Hi Susan,
Correct on Arches NP.......before I add any more input......here's a link to a previous version......this time with an "iceberg"...http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5058

PS I did lighten the shadow area from the previous version......see how much I learned in a year at BPN!

Harold Davis
01-29-2009, 06:42 PM
my first thought was the same as susan. it seems busy. another thought is that the foreground rock that is in the puddle is a different type of stone than the red rocks which dominate the scene. personally, i think if that stone were gone, it would work out a lot nicer.

Lance Peters
01-29-2009, 11:42 PM
Hi Roman - do agree with the others on the issue of the rock, does seem to be out of place.

Did you go to far?? It was all created in camera -- so that scene does actually exist, you have used your unique take on the scene to produce a different view. Personally I have no problem with this - if it was all done after the fact without being disclose then thats a different matter.

Just my humble two cents :)

Robert Amoruso
01-30-2009, 07:48 AM
I like that you started this off as a challenge - not just this image but for those viewing images here in this forum to say something.

I agree that the FG rock hinders the composition. Without it, better but all in all, I don't think accentuating the "puddle" is really helping it either.

Thanks for the lesson in seeing. It helps us all.

Phil Ginn
01-30-2009, 10:40 AM
Interesting image. I agree the rock seems out of place. I personally either seem to want to stand higher to see over the snow on the rock or get lower to see more reflection.

Valerio Tarone
01-30-2009, 10:40 AM
Hi Roman I read all..I understood the issue when I went to see the link.
sometimes, perhaps, I go counter current...! (dont' be angry!!!) the fG ROCK lead the eye, the remaining part of the composition is well balanced.

Roman Kurywczak
01-30-2009, 06:21 PM
Hi All,
Thanks all for the comments and participating! OriginallyI did start this for all of us to look and add comments. IMO there was no wrong or right answer. I just wanted to point out that even though I am personally attached to the image.......I still felt the exact same thing that you did.......the rock was too dominant for the image....maybe even too contrivied.
I have done this set up many times......with and without props/FG subjects. I like the simple reflection best but the iceberg version.....I don't mind.....as it seems more harmonious. You can't stand up.....as I said......this lake reflection doesn't exist......and right over the snow covered lip is the road and a parking lot....lower....I was as low as you can go...very good observations and thoughts! Most photographers compose w/o a fg interest.......& it's almost impossible to do without man made elements. Just goes to show you.....different isn't always better! Thanks all for peeking and and adding to the discussion. Hope you take the same approach with other images in the landscape forums!

Judd Patterson
01-30-2009, 11:29 PM
Roman, I can visualize you preparing your lake and setting up for this image. Great vision and dedication! I agree that the "boulder" is not very helpful...but I do love the snow and ice in the foreground. The scale is so hard to determine in this image....it really does look like a lake. Nice job stretching our photographic minds.

Rich Ikerd
01-31-2009, 04:56 PM
Chiming in a bit late on this one, but I really like these types of images, especially since the water is so unexpected in this particular locale (except for small periods of time). The "boulder" in the water detracts from the overall scene since it is competing for attention. A little more reflection and this would super for me. All of the competing elements (red rock, white snow and the "lake") complement each other so well, that I think it gives a very pleasing image (sans boulder please).

Jackie Schuknecht
01-31-2009, 06:00 PM
Personally I like it, it keeps your eye moving around the frame. I would have thought it was a boulder. The only thing I might change is maybe take some of the ice off the left.