Photo 1: I started with the horizon at the top, which I think is quite effective. I really like the shadow on the ground, and the grass has some interesting texture.
17mm, 1/13sec, f/16, ISO100, TripodPhoto 2: Horizon now about 1/3 from the top, which means there is some nice blue sky and clouds.
17mm, 1/13sec, f/16, ISO100, TripodPhoto 3: Horizon just above the centre, photo not that interesting...
17mm, 1/13sec, f/16, ISO100, TripodPhoto 4: Horizon just below the centre line. This is more interesting than Photo 3, because the clouds are more interesting than the foreground hill.
17mm, 1/13sec, f/20, ISO100, TripodPhoto 5: The horizon is now about 1/3 from the bottom, I really like the clouds covering the sky and the little bit of foreground, and the sky getting more blue towards the top of the photo.
17mm, 1/13sec, f/20, ISO100, TripodPhoto 6: I think this photo has lost the balance by removing the foreground. There is a lack of depth in this photo compared to the other shots.
17mm, 1/13sec, f/20, ISO100, TripodPhoto 7: I put Arthurs Seat at the bottom of the photo so it's mostly the clouds. I thought this would be really effective, but there is no balance in the shot and little interest apart from the abstract nature of the clouds.
17mm, 1/13sec, f/20, ISO100, TripodI think Photo 5 is the most interesting, because there is good depth in the photo, and interesting clouds and the horizon is a good position.
For me I like the last one as I really like the clouds and the unconventionally low horizon adds emphasis. On the earlier ones I find the foreground a little too dark to my taste.
ReplyDeleteHey Selina, nice sequence. I think picture 5 is probably the best composition except for the dark shadow at the edge of the built up area, which as Duncan says, is a little dark. For that reason, my favourite is picture 6 - it shows the great detail in the sky, has the horizon just below the 1/3 point, which makes for a strong composition, and the dark area at the edge of the houses has been missed out.
ReplyDelete