I suspect there are no 'rules', though nothing is exempt these days from fashion or fashionable formula. Perhaps start from the other end.

This is a fantastic country for walking as there is such a variety of scenery and light, often within short spans of time and distance. Yesterday I went to London by train and the blossom against the spring grass and water was breathtaking over the Chilterns and Thames valley, transforming a usually boring journey, even on a dull overcast day. No camera, nothing to bring back.

The challenge is to find a way of portraying and sharing the outdoors...by trying to get something of the space and breadth into a rectangular frame. Some things just work and some don't. Letting the mind auto-run on the frame and what it might contain helps. So does digital as one can bin the failures with nowt lost.

Most people would not call this a landscape shot,but I like it as it shows the starkness of the dunes agains't the sky,with the some of the sunset showing through the clouds,and the 3 solitary dog walkers as specks on the beach.It was very dark,as it was taken in the late evening,so I lightened it and applied a filter which gives the sand a grainy look .
If this shot had been taken during the day,it would have just looked like another plain beach/sand dune shot.
But sometimes I read into images, things which are not there,so to anyone else it may just seem a somewhat dark shot of the sand dunes.

If anyone views this image,could they please explain to me,why the sky area seems to be pixelated.I have noticed this in sky areas on images prev.Is there a reason,is it because it has been drastically lightened?.

Perhaps, but also maybe overcompression. 58kb seems low for an 800pixel wide image

Stephen ,I resized this image from its normal 72 to 300,then dropped it down to 800 wide,but when I saw the pixels in the sky line put it back to the original 72,and just upped everything to 800 wide again.there should not be anything with the no 58.

Christine, so long as you don't resample the image in the image size dialogue of PS the resolution makes no difference. It is the pixel width and height that are important, and I don't see that would have an effect on the blockyness effect of your image.

However the file size of a little over 58kb may do. Here is a screen grag showing the details over your photo

Christine you have overcooked the jpeg compression and it is showing jpeg artefacts. The image has a PS jpeg setting of medium 7. I try to avoid going below a setting of 10 to maintain quality. I would expect this image to be in the order of 200KB to 300KB with the amount of detail it has in it.

Thanks,Robski,so does that mean that I should have left the re sizing at 300,and upped the file to a larger size.

Christine

The 72 and 300 settings are related to printing. As Stephen has mentioned this is not related to your problem. Resize the image to 800 pixels as you have been doing. The problem is the way that your are saving the image. Tell us what you are doing at this stage.



I've just seen your comment asking what jpeg artefacts are.



Look at the noise in the bottom image. The 3 images are at different levels of compression.
Going from top to bottom the settings are Maximum, medium and lowest quaility.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...2&d=1142529726

Getting away from pixies, which I am sure Stephen and Rob can sort, yes, it is a landscape having the essential 'classic' qualities (derived from painting classes) of interest in the forground, middle ground and background (in this case the sky) and a 'form' to hold it all together. Personally I would have tried to get a more lively colour for the sand as the line between crepuscular and turgid can be a fine one