Wanting to improve my photography I have been looking around the net at landscapes images.

Now am I unlucky.Do you guys and gals always find the perfect rock for foreground interest,is there always an old log on the beach or the remains of an old wrecked boat,are there always calm rock polls where you are.Are there always a ton or pretty smooth rocks on the beach.Do some of you actually have a trailer full of just the right stones and boulders to dump in the foreground.

So come on guys and gals...how many of you shall we say "enhance" the foreground for interest.

Eddie 

Interesting tread I wonder what others will say or admit!

I have  some idea what I am looking on a beach or in a forest when I am going on a "photo excusion" . I am pretty open to everyhting long as I can see some interest in there. If I don't find it I am not create a scene to have a shot. Simply will miss the opportunity and hoping next time will be luckier. More likely I  working other way round, I am taking out of things from shots, like anoying leaf what is not realy suite a shot or shell on a beach. If this if "faking" well I do it in negative way...lol

seeya  Tunde

i couldn't be bothered myself!

I never touch or change anything that I take a photograph of,  especially nature!!!!!!!!

You just don't do it. It's like a photographers golden rule.. one of the 10 commandments..

~never ever change anything of nature ~

Alice

Hi Eddie...

there is a rule for me : "use what you see.." But for this, we need to learn to 'view' our environnement.. and when something is wrong : do it with it !

Wedding photography is a good example ! ...  There is always something in my field ... I compose with it, or i move to a complete other location.

Seeya ;o)
Olivier

I look for foreground objects to put in the field of view.  As with others, if the compo does not look suited I likely skip the shot altogether.  One of the most simple when outdoors is part of a tree or other object on the left or right of the frame foreground.  Look..look..look.  That is the way I do it and I do not manipulate a faked foreground.

I'd most likely remove something - mainly things like plastic bags and rubbish which might be difficult to get rid of in post processing.  Dont think i have ever put something in the foreground, unless the point of the photo was to do so - like my golf-ball-on-a-tee-on-the-beach shots from a while back.

I generally tend to look for those style of shots when composing anyway... especially on the beach...

Hell Yes.........

Nature or chance cannot be relied upon .

I've never heard of any photographers golden rules that say you shouldn't

If there's a rule somewhere, I'll try to break it.

I push the button and I decide. Some things you cannot change, like people who happen to be there at the moment the sun lits the landscape exactly like you want it to, and, seen the heavy clouds, this won't happen again. They have the right to be there, but when home, I hear Darth Sidious whisper in my ear "Wipe them out. All of them."
Which I mercilessly do.

Adding things is, my opinion, more in the twilight zone between photo and manipulation. Nothing wrong with that, but it's different.

As for your subject/question: I have the impression that good photographs simply happen to you. You are somewhere, you feel the tingling which makes you 100% there and then, all senses concentrated, and then it happens. The jungle-consciousness of the hunter, but transformed, sublimated so as to say.

*"more in the twilight zone "

*A bit like Gregory Crewsdon you mean - he did a twilight series

http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/29128-popup.html

http://www.luhringaugustine.com/index.php?mode=artists&object_id=66#

I generally look for a subject then use something in the foreground to lead your eye to it, usually natural lines such as paths, creeks, rocks or even branches work well.

I would suggest looking into general design techniques i'm sure there's plenty written on it both in print and on the web.

-Rich

I live in the lowlands... no 'native' rocks to be found anywhere near, just mud and dirt. That's why I'm always looking to find beauty in boring and uninteresting things; plenty of them around! ;o))

I will clone out distractions when needed but rarely if ever add some object unless specificaly in photo manipulation..   I have no rule saying not to do this..not much different than changing lighting or mood through exposure, levels, etc.

Well, I will remove stuff...but not add..now I wonder why that is?  I have not really thought about it before.   

Ok, a follow up on my previous post..digressing a little. Tanchelyn said that good photography simply happens to you..sometimes, perhaps.  I agree.  Perhaps my best (as I see it and not necessarily in gallery comments) are result of being there and having an awareness to compose and push the shutter at the right moment.  I cannot call these shots when the shots do not happen.

And for Olivier, you have a personal rule of using the aspect of the film frame. This must require very careful composition in the viewfinder.  Considering the quality of your photos and the success of your Brussels exhibit, you fully understand the format and frame in which you work.

With digital, we have the option of taking lots and lots of images of the same subject. I am not saying a film photogrpher will not use rolls and rolls of film and only use a few shots.  

What is lacking in some degree is the availability of the scene...it happens or does not is perhaps too strong but close to the answer. Then, the eye seeing the scene and composing and click.   What is also lacking with some new to digital is the need to take more time.  The "Single Use Camera" challenge proved that to me.  Olivier had a fine presentation of the shots taken by a simple throw away camera with no controls but our eye and sense of scene and composition.  Others did the same. It was a fine experiment valued I suspect by most who tried it.

If using filters for a special purpose, such as a nd gradient, I have to take time to compose and believe me I will scout the scene and take the time to adjut everything just right.  Folks like Ansel Adams spend days in the desert waiting for the right light...well, I am not doing that but I do digitally mimic some of the darkroom tricks he used, knowing the original was not the shot he wanted in print to be viewed.

Oh my, spoken too many words here.  Got me going, who to blame? Me, that is it.

I see the landscapes others present and wonder why I don't have that sort of thing to shoot. Well, I live where I live.  Within where I live are many fine photos I have not taken.  Perhaps one day my eye will see and then I will compose and push the shutter.

Hmm... I can't think that I would ever alter the foreground I just tend to look around until I find something that I can use to try and add depth and lead the eye into the picture. If I can't find anything at all (which is quite rare, you just have to use your imagination sometimes and get a little creative) then I'll move on to another location.
Sometimes I'll swap the sky for something a little more dramatic but I don't do this often as it has to look 100% natural.

I never fake a landscape shot, what you see is what i see, i edit  ie crop, brighten, sharpen but that it is.......a photograph to me is what you actually take the picture of, no manipulations, otherwise it just becomes art and not photography.

I tend to find subjects that anchor or draw your eyes into the image. 

I will remove garbage/debris at times....good idea to bring a trash bag along to dispose of this kind of stuff properly.  

Only time I add something is if its a subject or concept that I want to be in the photo.  (like a toy/figurine...object I bring from home that sort of thing)

Quote - I never fake a landscape shot, what you see is what i see, i edit  ie crop, brighten, sharpen but that it is.......a photograph to me is what you actually take the picture of, no manipulations, otherwise it just becomes art and not photography.

Is not photography art? ;)

Photography can certainly be art and I believe many examples on the site prove that..I refer to the good art, what is seen as art and not the snapshot of grandma with her partially cut off.

Art takes many forms and photography is certainly one form very suited.

Rich, your question is not for me but I felt to give a thought on it.

Personally, I like to try and ensure a unedited straight from camera shot where possible - it's nice to show you have technical and compositional skills.  

I will occsaionally crop for effect, at the most adjusting gamma/colours (like with my recent aerial shots) if the photo has come out bad, and using the clone brush to erase people. 

Though I do think modifaction to an image for artistic effect is legitmate, as long as you are honest about if anyone asks.  

mrsparky, without technicl and compo skills we would all be hurting...or depending too much on soffware try and fix things.  I also try to get the best I can when the shot is snapped. That is the ideal and sometimes it works very well.

To me, it is a matter of taking enough time, when that is an option, to compose the best I can and get the exposure and depth of field desired.

Certainly heavily manipulated images are different.  It is all in the desired result and effect on the viewer.  I can never begin to guess how others will react to one of my photos. I tried a few times but was proven not to have that ability.            Tom.

Just to add to my earlier comment, I see pressing the shutter as just the start of the process of creating a good image. Although I do try to get as much right in camera as possible - composition, exposure etc.  I'm not always trying to capture the scene in front of me but the one in my head - if that makes any sense, lol.

If real, you must have used Vertus Fluid Mask or other selection method to get such a clean result.  I am not certain how you would do this in layers and transparency..

I am possibly "set up" for the answer but will say REAL.   Now, you tell me and how?   Tom.

Quote - These rocks were already on the beach...

Nongo, I see you got to the beach a few hours after I did! It took me ages to put those rocks out :biggrin:

In the old days, camera's worked with different sizes of film. You had 36x24mm, being a 3-2 ratio, you had 4x5 inch, being, yes, 4-5 ratio, you had 6x6,...

So try to get the composition in your viewer is a personal choice, absolutely free and often very rewarding. But it is not a law: it is a choice.
Some people love to see all their kids being dressed identically, some don't. Some schools, like armies, have uniforms, which helps to supress individuality and choice, and some don't. There is no rule that says that you have to do this or that. Most works of genius, be it in science, art, philosophy, even religion came into being because someone did not respect the existing compromises.
In sports, we humans always try to set new landmarks, break existing boundaries.

Inside all of us, we have that little rebel child, that voice that wants us to claim our birthright, namely to be free, each day, and twenty-four hours a day. And it feels good to, at least now and then, break free and simply be the creative genius we were all born to be, but whom we suppress because of everyday, practical purposes.

Like the great Moghul Emperor Akbar wrote (Akhbar was a very religious man): I find it very positive when man tries to create something. In confronting the limits of his creation, he will start to philosophise and be more conscious about the worl he is living in, which leads him; ultimately, to the source of creation of the whole Universe.

Making photographs does make one more conscious, more alert. It can open eyes you haven't used before, it can open doors of perception that untill that moment were closed.

Don't close the door of a self-chosen prison of rules and regulations, don't lock yourselves in. Be free when you create, feel life inside and around you.
And dare to question everything. It are only pixels on a memory card (or some chemicals on a strap of cellophane) and you can make very important discoveries.

I feel this is important.
To me at least.