Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


Submitted on
March 25, 2011
Image Size
643 KB


55 (who?)

Camera Data

Canon EOS 7D
Shutter Speed
5/1 second
Focal Length
10 mm
ISO Speed
Date Taken
Mar 18, 2011, 7:14:12 PM
Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Sensor Size


Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Footooth Horsehills by BradLeeDaleNorth Footooth Horsehills by BradLeeDaleNorth
Or maybe it's Horsetooth Foothills. Or maybe I should just call it Horsetooth Reservoir. Anywho, this is a shot from the Horsetooth Reservoir in the foothills near Fort Collins, CO. My friend Bob [link] and I were up visiting our friends Jake [link] and Chris for a few days. Jake's gotten some greats shots from this reservoir so I was stoked when he said we were gonna give it shot.

The sunset wasn't very dramatic and turned out to be a bit hazy. I walked back toward the other guys thinking they were ready to head out. Jake had suggested we hang around and wait for the post sunset glow to hopefully illuminate the southern clouds. Sure enough, soft cool light spilled over the nearby ridge while also casting a strong pink hue into the clouds about 20 min. after sunset. Being on a sandy beach of a lake while surrounded with huge boulders makes for a really neat scene that I don't witness often, so I wanted to incorporate all of those features into the image.

Turned out to be a great way to begin the night with some of my greatest friends in the most beautiful of states.
Add a Comment:
Konieczny12 Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2011
BradLeeDaleNorth Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2011  Professional Photographer
Thank you so much!
xAgNO3x Featured By Owner May 25, 2011  Professional General Artist
Came back to this one again and thought exactly the same... Great composition!
BradLeeDaleNorth Featured By Owner May 25, 2011  Professional Photographer
Thank you for the comment! I hope if you come back again it doesn't change ;)
xAgNO3x Featured By Owner May 26, 2011  Professional General Artist
It won't... I love what you did there. I'm actually a newbie about land/waterscape photography, but by observing, I have realized that most of the land/waterscapes photography tends to have more or less the same composition but it changes depending on the frame orientation. I have noticed that vertical orientations tends to be more focused on depth, like in the Z axis, while horizontal framing tends to be more focused in the X axis and sometimes, in the Z axis. Also found that we humans tend to search for lines and shapes, not the shapes of the objects, but the shape conformed by the combination of objects and the key is founding these setups/configurations around the observer. It's like something related to geometry, like the scenery is just lines and shapes "wearing" rocks, water/rivers/cascades, clouds, trees, etc. Please, correct me if I'm wrong :)
BradLeeDaleNorth Featured By Owner May 27, 2011  Professional Photographer
Wow, I think you've thought about this for a while. I do agree with you on those aspects but also feel that photography, in terms of land/waterscapes just has an organic, natural feel. Sure, perspective, leading lines, and composition all play a role and if the human mind can't immediately see the order in the shot, it has failed. Looking through a lens brings order to the chaos of nature. Simplifying an area and offering a glimpse of the whole. When deduced, all those things you state are a huge part of a scene. While I am shooting I very rarely think about the combining of shapes and lines, I just know when it feels right. Then when I sit down at the comp, I can begin to notice all the little intricacies weaved throughout an image, which is always a fun experience but doesn't happen often. I've learned much more from my failures than my successes, which greatly outweigh the latter.
xAgNO3x Featured By Owner May 27, 2011  Professional General Artist
I see... I just have a couple of years shooting land/waterscape, so I'm learning how to observe what surrounds me in order to put some order in the chaos of things. I'm lately reading a lot about climate before going and take the shot, for example, looking for clouds and for the sunset, sunrise, moonset and moonrise in order to know how good will be the light in the location I chose. I'm just a newbie in this type of photography, so I need to learn some rules in order to portray what I feel in some good manner. You know, there are many things we like, but not always we portray it in the best way possible. Just now I'm learning what I'm able to do without shooting directly to the sun on the sunset. A new playground to learn for me. Thanks for sharing your experience! :highfive:
BradLeeDaleNorth Featured By Owner May 29, 2011  Professional Photographer
Well I'd say you're on the right track! Shooting at 90 to the sun or with the sun directly in front of you can make some neat shots. If you're shooting with the sun at your back on the horizon not only will you be in the shot but it tends to make landscapes look flat, removing the depth. Doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't do it, its just tough to pull off a shot worth sharing. Anytime! I work in a camera store so I chat cameras, photos, and photography all day. Deviant gives the chance to actually talk about what I wanna talk about, which is landscape. Not many landscape shooters here in the Midwest.
xAgNO3x Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2011  Professional General Artist
HEhe... I'm teaching photography privately, so that allows me to talk about what I like as well: photography! :lol: I use to mix some metaphysic stuff with photography into the class as well... I like such topics. When I have to describe how RAW Files are composed, what it really is and how it becomes an image, I use a very nice example I found by teaching, which is comparing the RAW File to an ocean of non manifested possibilities, an abstract code of data with some basic instructions about how to become an structure that our senses can perceive. I told them that if we would be able to understand all the codes and language inside the RAW File, we would figure out the image without the image, but all that data needs to become something tangible for us, so it takes a physical body, which is the image we see on screen. Then I talk about the translator, which is the RAW Editor, etc... It's a long explanation of 3 hours more or less... Of course, a materialistic person won't understand how something could not be made of matter, so it believes that a RAW File is the image itself instead an intangible compound of maths converted to an image. This also gives me the step to talk about how rules are before shape, and how rules shape the data into a form, etc... Thankfully, I've never had materialists in my classes, just one.

Last time I did some shots, I used a polarizer. Cannot remember talked to you about that. I bought one the other day, a Hoya HD one. It was so great using that thing! So that obligated me to thing other kind of shots, more like you say, 90 to the sun. Also tried some with the sun at my back and found that thing about my shadow becoming into the frame, like you say. But man... the polarizer is da trick! I found it much better than using the square ND filters. All the dynamic range of camera is used flawlessly! I also did many shots with the sun at my front. I've red that way, the polarizer doesn't work, but I think it works some how. It does something. I don't know, but the sun looked much more soft and also the glow of the sun looked much better instead burnt and cranked.

Where is located the Midwest?
BradLeeDaleNorth Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2011  Professional Photographer
That is a very intense and awesome way to look at it! Polarizers can be a great way to see things differently but I find myself more often wishing I hadn't used a polarizer for certain shots. Mostly because I misplace the effect and it creates a dark blue spot in a clear sky.

By the midwest I mean Missouri, in the. U.S.
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment: