rockies - round 2

[srmoment]

well here I am again (round 2 of my rockies series) and being somewhat compositionally challenged, I am wondering which of these (if any) catches your eye and I'd love your feedback......
(p.s. I need to tone down the greens somewhat.....)

I have several versions of the same location:
1:
 
#2
 
#3

[cats4jan]

I like #2 - the rock formation in the lower right is in the just the right position for me

[VickiD]

Personally, I like #1. The shadows are more open in all the trees, the colors warmer and more pleasing to me, I like the fact that the lower left is clear of any rocks...nothing to block entry into the river. I also like the pointy rock in the lower mid-right that has a twin under the water (does that make sense?).

[pontiac1940]

Pat,
I'd prefer to see quite a lot of the bottom cropped off all three. To my eye, the rip-rap boulders are unnecessary. In all three, the sweet spot is the top half...in my eye.
Clive
 

[srmoment]

Thanks all.
Clive, I always thought you were supposed to have something in the foreground in a landscape to 'ground' the viewer. Thought it was a 'no-no' to just have a reflection or water in the foreground.

What originally caught my eye were the reflections and colors of the lake/mountains/forest. I had to be careful as the highway runs along the right and there was a lot of traffic - thus the perspective.

I should remember to include an explanation of why/how I took the photograph when I submit these for member review.

[hmca]

Jul 13, 2022 13:51:15 GMT srmoment said:

I always thought you were supposed to have something in the foreground in a landscape to 'ground' the viewer.

I thought so, too. And I actually liked the second one for that reason. I didn't think it needed any additional pp but just for the heck of it opened it in PS to see what a bit of dynamic contrast using CE 4 might do.
There had been an update to CE 4 and this was the first time I used it. I don't use their recipes but it opened right away to a Clarity Bump recipe. I isolated it to the foreground rocks (and maybe the row of rocks on the right...forget...did it last night before Vicki posted) and liked the way it brought the texture of the rock. For what it's worth....I liked it. I can see Vicki and Clive shaking their heads....LOL!

[pontiac1940]

For sure, composition is highly subjective and people prefer different things and "see" things differently. 
Pat, this is a good thoughtful question and discussion and it is good to get feedback from different points of view.  Fun stuff.  

Jul 13, 2022 13:51:15 GMT srmoment said:

I always thought you were supposed to have something in the foreground in a landscape to 'ground' the viewer.

Good point and I get it, however, I think the "matter" of the foreground base can be conceptual vs "bricks and mortar" (i.e. solid ground.) The foreground in this series is far too prominent for me. I could be swayed in this specific example if the foreground water was pristine clear and/or lovely "Peyto Lake" aqua blue. 

In this hard-cropped version the water can be seen as a "solid" triangular base that nicely leads to the distant mountains. 


In this original version (#2) my eyes see too much nothingness in the foreground: an expanse of (rather dull) open water and artificial boulder rip-rap that overpowers the "real" scene being the distant vista. This large area almost "blocks" my eyes from seeing the mountain scene. 

[srmoment]

okay Clive, here is my take on cropping out the rocks:


It is interesting to see who likes the rocks left in and who doesn't......

[cats4jan]

I agree with you - the rocks in the foreground 'grounded' the photo for me and it's the one I prefer - more interesting. However, the 'never ending water' look of the last one kinda works for me, too.

Not very helpful LOL