Rattlesnake Overlook...

[w7xman]

As a weather nut, this mackeral sky was a real treat this autumn morning on Rattlesnake overlook above Squam Lake. The sky was something that I wanted to give as much frame as I could, and the reflection was to me, very compelling. To do so though, I broke the rules, and though I like the picture, it gets a very mixed response among those I show.

I expect the same here.

But I really would appreciate thoughts on the overall composition, and if you feel I should crop out some of the sky to balance this out a bit. Or is this a photo just for me to enjoy as an image of a great moment I experienced...

Thanks in advance...

Canon 20D w/ Canon 24mm
1/8 Second at F16
ISO 200
2 stop Soft GND filter
1 Stop Hard GND filter
Tripod

 

[NewHampshire]

I like the autumn colors.....but (sorry you noted you expectd this )

The thing I don't like is the color of the sky due to the filter. It looks to unnatural to me when you have the bright reds and yellows to contrast it. I would like to see the sky a tad bit brighter.

Brian

 

[darren]

Composition is ok and I dont mind you breaking the "rules" and the detail is good in the lake and far mountains, but...(like NH said, you knew this was coming)...

The sky for me does not have enough detail or stuff going on to hold my interest. I also agree with NH that the filter use made the shot look unnatural. The reflection of the sky in the lake is brighter than the sky itself, which is impossible. It is a tough line, because you need a GND filter to get some detail in teh sky, but if you use too much you get an unnatural shot like this one. I don't have a problem with the color in the trees, the lake for me is the problem. I've been out on rainy days with minimal light and seen very saturated reds and yellows. Maybe you could have lined the filter up with the near edge of the lake instead of the far horizon. That would have given you detail in the sky, a blanced lake, and maybe even more saturated tree color.

As I said to you before, I often judge people's photographs by photos that I have seen from them in the past. This photo is nice, but I don't think it is up to your standard.

- darren

 

[kmorgan]

I like the autumn colors.....but (sorry you noted you expectd this )

The thing I don't like is the color of the sky due to the filter. It looks to unnatural to me when you have the bright reds and yellows to contrast it. I would like to see the sky a tad bit brighter.

Brian

I agree. I did a quick levels adjustment in Photoshop and here's how it looks:



Kevin

 

[darren]

I agree. I did a quick levels adjustment in Photoshop and here's how it looks:

Kevin

Sha-zam!

- darren

 

[Brambor]

I like the shot. I'm not sure if I would change much but I played a little bit with an alternate crop that you might entertain:

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I noticed you did not use a polarizer. No doubt that was to preserve the reflection in the water, and I agree with that decision. But the saturation in the foliage does suffer a bit from that lack of polarization. Brambor's crop de-emphasizes that problem and also eliminates some branches that were past prime.

I agree that the light reflection of the sky appears unnatural, an indication that you overcompensated with the GND stops. I think the two offered adjustments are an improvement, but for me the reflection is still too light in comparison to the sky.

This is the kind of photo that would appeal most to a trained weatherman. Though I, an admitted weather buff, find it interesting also.

 

[w7xman]

Thanks for all your thoughts, I kinda figured that's how it would be recieved, and I appreciate all your honesty in critque. The takes on editing are intriguing as well, I like the added contrast, the lightening of the sky, and the latest crop.

While I guess it still doesn't make it a gold star shot for my collection, it does seem to make it generally more appealing and more balanced.

On a side note, I really like how this forum is going, from great shots, to helping those looking to improve! Kudos to all!

 

[Papa Bear]

...
The reflection of the sky in the lake is brighter than the sky itself, which is impossible.
...
- darren

Daren

I've thought about this comment and I think it may not be always true. If you consider a "back lighted" bank of clouds where the sun is behind and above the cloud bank such that the edge of the cloud that the camera sees in in shade and the back edges are in light, then I think the reflection can be lighter than the sky.

Conside an object with a black front and a white back. You see the black front (with a sliver of white showing around the edges). Now put a mirror behind and below the object and in the mirror you will see the white side. I think that's what you see here.

If the cloud bank were one mass with only one visible side (in which case it would be uniformly dark), than yes, you would be right, but this one is a mottled cloud bank with lots of places where you can see the sun shining through on the back of various portions. That's what makes it visually interesting after all.

Not to say the filtering did not make this affect more exagerated, but I think it's possible that the reflection can be brighter than the sky.

Any optics experts care to chime in?

 

[nartreb]

Also possible where a more distant patch of sky (reflected in a distant lake) simply has much thinner clouds than the nearby sky (or no clouds at all). ie, shaft of sunlight strikes lake at correct angle to reflect into the viewer's eye, but very thick cloud close to viewer still looks pretty dark despite being directly in front of the sun.

Papa bear's scenario (reflection of bright edge of a cloud) is possible, but requires a low sun, a thick cloud with a big well-defined sunward face positioned between the viewer and the sun, and a lake at a sharp angle below the viewer. For the reflection and the direct view show different sides of the same cloud, without allowing the lake to tilt toward the viewer (water and gravity would make that tough), the viewer has to be nearly as high as the cloud, the sun has to be about as low as the viewer, the cloud has to be near the viewer, and the lake has to be steeply below the viewer.

 

[darren]

My comment was about the fact that a reflection can not be brighter than it's source. It is impossible. Sure a lake can be brighter than the sky sometimes, but if it is a reflection of the sky and you can see what it is a reflection of, then it can't happen.

By definition, a reflection is a bounced path of light coming from a subject. The light will lose intensity with the bounce and a reflection can not be brighter than your direct view of the source.

In this case, I guess you can not say for sure that the sky you see in the lake is the sky above it, but it sure looks like it. And to me it looks like an overuse of a GND filter. Could be a bias on my part because I look at a lot of photos, but it still appears to be to be "non-conformal" with reality IMHO.

Jim - you know what I mean, right?

- darren

 

[w7xman]

Jim - you know what I mean, right?

- darren

I follow!

And it's true that a reflection itself cannot be brighter than it's subject.

Here's an interesting schematic...
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/water.htm

Your all right on the reflection and the intensity of the filtration. Typically reflections are between 1 and 2 stops darker, and I used three to bring out detail in the sky. And though I was going for the sky, I think and thank everyone for taking time to detail what doesn't work about it, and how to improve it.

I think next time I'm in this situation, I use 2 stops, and go for intense reflections, and a little less dramatic sky!