Critique Llyn Padarn - How would you improve these images?

TGphoto

TGphoto

Messages
3,412
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
These cannot be improved as such although I'd have got in front of that silly tree for a 3rd shot to go for a simple 50:50 losing the foreground rocks.

The conditions are to die for. Perfect ripple free water, lovely lush summer greens (so much nicer than bare brown trees) and a lovely lovely sky. I like how the slight haze makes it even more restful and tranquil to look at.

One of the best images I have ever seen posted on here, conditions wise anyway. The PP, in answer to your question, is fantastic.
 
Last edited:
Quite like the first one - the rocks give a nice balance and while Steve's advice above would produce a decent result, eliminating rocks and trees etc is just shooting the scene in an entirely different way rather than improving the way you've chose to shoot it.

My advice which is minor one with the first would either to have cloned out or cropped the tiny rock extreme left bottom corner on the frame edge, not enough folk pay attention to frame edges which can pull the eye.

2nd image, if you're including the lone tree the branches need separating from the patch of trees behind it stepping to the left a touch or getting a bit lower down. Also you could crop a bit off the bottom and go for more of a 16:9 which might work better.
 
SFTPhotography said:
These cannot be improved as such although I'd have got in front of that silly tree for a 3rd shot to go for a simple 50:50 losing the foreground rocks.

The conditions are to die for. Perfect ripple free water, lovely lush summer greens (so much nicer than bare brown trees) and a lovely lovely sky. I like how the slight haze makes it even more restful and tranquil to look at.

One of the best images I have ever seen posted on here, conditions wise anyway. The PP, in answer to your question, is fantastic.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the comments, good to get them from you as you seem to be the reflection landscape guru :).

I do have a few more compositions I will look at but to be honest, I stuck the tree on on here to gauge reaction. I actually went there for the 'famous tree', but felt that it was just blocking my view to be honest and preferred the compositions without it.

Yes the conditions were great, I left the tent in Abersoch just after 4.30am and got there around 5.30ish as the sun was coming up over the mountain to the left. Was actually going there to climb Snowdon (pics to follow). The haze I didn't mind either, added to the composition for me!
 
Stuart Mc said:
Quite like the first one - the rocks give a nice balance and while Steve's advice above would produce a decent result, eliminating rocks and trees etc is just shooting the scene in an entirely different way rather than improving the way you've chose to shoot it.

My advice which is minor one with the first would either to have cloned out or cropped the tiny rock extreme left bottom corner on the frame edge, not enough folk pay attention to frame edges which can pull the eye.

2nd image, if you're including the lone tree the branches need separating from the patch of trees behind it stepping to the left a touch or getting a bit lower down. Also you could crop a bit off the bottom and go for more of a 16:9 which might work better.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Will look into that, exactly the type of constructive comments I was looking for as well, cheers.
 
Stuart Mc said:
2nd image, if you're including the lone tree the branches need separating from the patch of trees behind it stepping to the left a touch or getting a bit lower down. Also you could crop a bit off the bottom and go for more of a 16:9 which might work better.
Click to expand...

Good spot - pace to the left I would wager. Getting lower would cut the reflections off more than they already are. Further left, placing the tree more central and high enough to include the reflection but low enough to have separation between the tree and the distant foliage.

What fun. Looks a cracking morning out.
 
Agree with the others that the light and processing are good. In the first, I'd darken the sky a bit a top left, to keep the eye in the picture, and also a little darkening of the water bottom left, to keep it looking like a natural reflection and (again) to keep the eye in. I'd keep the rock Stuart mentions were the water that bit darker.
The second - the tree darkens the top left hand corner, so I might just darken the light parts of the foreground slate to force attention into the distance.
But all these comments are minor.
 
That's a beautiful scene well captured. If it had been me I'd have stood a bit closer to the water to take out more of the foreground rocks, but that would be my take on it, not yours. It's a much stronger but more tranquil image than the one with the tree, where the tree is a distraction. I'd happily have that on my wall :)
 
In the first image I think you should have physically aligned the centre stone as it distracts the eye. As for PP I'd warm them up and give them some depth. Heres one that is maybe a little over the top but you get the idea.42763845702_891ffc3d76_b_pe.jpg
 
Last edited:
dcash29 said:
In the first image I think you should have physically aligned the centre stone as it distracts the eye. As for PP I'd warm them up and give them some depth. Heres one that is maybe a little over the top but you get the idea.View attachment 128730
Click to expand...

dcash29 said:
Heres the other
View attachment 128737
Click to expand...

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to edit and comment. I like the idea of what you are saying, and the first edit. Like you say, might be a bit over done but I like the idea. My only issue with something like this is that it’s not the scene I shot, and to some extent looks unrealistic. I worked quite a lot in PP to get realistic colours and played around with the temp and greens quite a bit. I think it’s hard to find a balance sometimes and please everyone with something so subjective.

The sun in 1 works, mind me asking how you did this?
 
I always think PP is about enhancing what the camera produced to make it look like what your eyes actually saw, there rather than producing something you didn't see. The original PP is lovely in my eyes, maybe lower the luminance a bit on the blues to darken the sky. I'd agree that getting separation of the tree and the foliage is what you want, but that's the sort of annoying thing you tend to only see when you're editing at home afterwards!! Hope we get such good conditions when we're in Wales next month!
 
alan72 said:
I always think PP is about enhancing what the camera produced to make it look like what your eyes actually saw, there rather than producing something you didn't see. The original PP is lovely in my eyes, maybe lower the luminance a bit on the blues to darken the sky. I'd agree that getting separation of the tree and the foliage is what you want, but that's the sort of annoying thing you tend to only see when you're editing at home afterwards!! Hope we get such good conditions when we're in Wales next month!
Click to expand...

I’d agree with that statement. Yeah true on the tree as well, to be honest, I just felt like it was getting in the way at the time, it’s better when the base of it is surrounded by water. The key is to get down there early early, as soon as the winds pick up, it’s gone. Both this and Buttermere the other week I was up by 4.15 am.

davekiddle said:
I think the first lends itself to a dramatic monochrome (Just a very quick edit!)

View attachment 128744
Click to expand...

Interesting concept, I like it but wouldn’t make the main version of this image into mono mainly because I like the bit of colour in the sky and the greenery:)

I like it though, thanks for spending the time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top