Timeline for How to convey a sense of depth & distance in a landscape?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2018 at 9:03 | comment | added | Tetsujin | Agreed. When I started on this answer I was really more concerned with how the image can draw the eye easily from front to back, how the elements funnel you to the distance, then allow you to return to examine the foreground, without any jarring leaps. I was trying to do this without getting into details of leading lines/tangents etc. It then grew organically & after input from comments ended up not quite as focussed as my first intent. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:46 | comment | added | junkyardsparkle | The blue-shift is present in 1, it just doesn't look very blue, because of the warm white balancing of the image... it's more a case of shifting from amber to neutral. :) | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:31 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added blue shift, at the end
|
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:27 | comment | added | chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- | I managed to miss what you meant by "atmospherics". | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:22 | comment | added | Tetsujin | I'm struggling to get the blue-shift into the explanation - because it's present even in the ones lacking the other depth-cues & hardly noticeable in 1 which has plenty of other cues... so isn't really part of the 'cause of flatness' in the OP. I'll have a work at it & see where I get... | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:17 | comment | added | junkyardsparkle | On re-reading, I see it's implied... maybe just a little explaining of what "atmospherics" translates to in photometric terms? :) | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:13 | comment | added | Tetsujin | I called it 'atmospherics'. I can drop the word haze in there but the effect itself was already mentioned, albeit briefly. | |
| Feb 20, 2018 at 8:10 | comment | added | junkyardsparkle | I agree with with @chrylis in that the perceptual cues coming from the change in dynamic range due to haze seem worth explicitly pointing out... they are very powerful cues. Great answer, otherwise! | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 22:37 | comment | added | chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- | One particular aspect that's relevant to your explanation but you didn't call out explicitly: Haze, which has an additive effect with distance. Even on a day that seems clear to the naked eye, there's usually humidity or other particles that add that gradual shift not seen in #4. | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 18:23 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 225 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 18:15 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
sorting thoughts slightly more coherently, from what was initially a bit 'stream of consciousness'
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 18:04 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 17:14 | comment | added | Tetsujin | I'm not sure I've enough space to properly set out with why I think 5 is bad; a slight blue cast doesn't even begin to cover it. It could be a question all of its own. "What makes this photo poor?" ;-) | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 17:07 | comment | added | Agent_L | I think #5 is important. Blueing of objects far away is one of the ways how humans perceive distance, and #5 is all blue, nothing left for the objects in background. They're not far enough, that's true, however overcast sky can ruin the color temperature difference. Similar thing happens with #4 where blue lake competes with the mountains that are too clear. | |
| Feb 19, 2018 at 14:56 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 162 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 14:53 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 492 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 14:46 | vote | accept | Mike | ||
| Feb 19, 2018 at 14:44 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 14:38 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 159 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2018 at 14:30 | history | answered | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |