Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: byork on July 11, 2009, 07:06:22 am
-
Not sure which is the best composition....seems to be a downfall of mine judging by some of the responses to a few of my posts. Hate em both? I'd rather you said so!!
Cheers
Brian
-
Brian, Don't crop. The original composition is good. What did you see when you decided to take this picture? Usually, that's the picture you want.
-
Brian, Don't crop. The original composition is good. What did you see when you decided to take this picture? Usually, that's the picture you want.
Hey Russ
I actually went there specifically to take the original shot. Last time I was there a couple of weeks ago it was raining but I wanted the waterfall on the left with the valley in the background. Yesterday was a bit misty but I think that probably helped the shot in it's way. I went on the walk with my brother in law, and he sat in with me while I went through the shots.....he more or less convinced me to take the right side out.
-
Not sure which is the best composition....seems to be a downfall of mine judging by some of the responses to a few of my posts. Hate em both? I'd rather you said so!!
Cheers
Brian
The composition of the second one is quite good in terms of shape and form. The flow of the sky over the pinkish rock face tends to mirror, or complement the flow of the waterfall.
However, I can see why you attempted to crop the image. The eye tends to be attracted towards the brightest parts of an image. The waterfall is the main subject, but the sky competes with it and tends to win because it's by far the brightest part of the image and covers quite a large area.
An alternative to cropping would be to lighten the waterfall and darken the sky, if it's not blown.
-
An alternative to cropping would be to lighten the waterfall and darken the sky, if it's not blown.
I agree with Ray- the original composition works beautifully. If you have camera raw or lightroom, play around with the luminance sliders and see if you can pull down the sky brightness. If the sky is blown, then just lightly burn that half of the picture. It's a really pretty shot!
John
-
Not sure which is the best composition....seems to be a downfall of mine judging by some of the responses to a few of my posts. Hate em both? I'd rather you said so!!
Cheers
Brian
My thought would be to crop but differently than you did. I would crop off a vertical strip at the right edge, about 1/4 of the photo width. This would get rid of the very distracting white sky and focus more on the very nice waterfall and foreground leaves.
Peter
-
Not sure which is the best composition....seems to be a downfall of mine judging by some of the responses to a few of my posts. Hate em both? I'd rather you said so!!
Cheers
Brian
Brian:
I prefer the first of the two. My reasoning is the repeating of the "flow" of the waterfall in the distant cliff & sky at the right, and similarly with the two green branches along the left. All three of these features are somewhat parallel and I think that works.
If there is any improvement to be made it would be to lower the brightness of the sky to the right of the cliff. Not a lot, just enough so that it does not draw your eyes away from the waterfall, but still enough to keep that repeating pattern defined (say ~20% reduction in brightness?)
Andrew
-
Brian,
I guess people are going to get tired of me saying this, but I'll say it anyway: If you're a reasonably experienced photographer and if you've learned something about composition by studying the work of the masters -- either masters of photography or masters of painting, a very large percentage of the time your first impression of a scene is going to be the correct one when you turn it into a photograph.
Now, I know the theory is that your eye is drawn to the brightest point in a picture, but some eyes are connected to brains, and my brain tells me that the waterfall isn't the primary subject in this picture. The sharp canyon with its foggy, soft light is the primary subject. I see that first. Then, I notice that there's a waterfall on the left, beautifully subdued by the lighting, and echoing the S-shape of the stepped valley. Finally, I notice that the shape of the overhang on the nicely wooded cliff on the right echoes the initial slant of the cliff on the left.
It's very good composition. Frankly, I can't see how you can improve on it. I know that a lot of people think that snapping the shutter is only the first step, and that all the fun comes later when we play with it in Photoshop. If that's your bag then get the picture into Photoshop right away and crop, enhance, subdue, and otherwise trash the picture. But to my mind, that would be sacrilege. You nailed the shot when you tripped that shutter. It's a very good shot.
-
Thanks everybody, first class feedback.
Russ, you've summed up exactly what I was trying to achieve with the composition, but there are some good suggestions here so I might play around with those later and see what I end up with. If I think it works better I'll post it.
Cheers
Brian
-
I guess people are going to get tired of me saying this, but I'll say it anyway: If you're a reasonably experienced photographer and if you've learned something about composition by studying the work of the masters -- either masters of photography or masters of painting, a very large percentage of the time your first impression of a scene is going to be the correct one when you turn it into a photograph.
If one is attempting 'art', there's no such thing as a 'correct' one, only a preferred one and a one preferred by whom. Irrespective of one's experience as a photographer and one's formal training and study of the masters, a photographer will tend to take a shot of a composition that interests him.
The difficulty then becomes one of rendering to monitor or print that initial impression that prompted or inspired one to take the shot.
Disappointment in the final result, especially with landscapes, is often due to the inability of the camera to capture with a single shot the detail, tonality and vibrancy of the original scene as witnessed by the eye. This is partly because the pupil of the eye is continually dilating and contracting as one's gaze shifts from one part of the real scene to the other. Furthermore, this dilation and contraction occurs almost instantly so we are hardly aware it's happening.
We look at the bright mist and our pupils contract so we see every whisp and drift. We shift our gaze to the dense undergrowth surrounding the waterfall and our pupils instantly dilate so we can absorb the fine detail in the shadows. We shift our gaze just slightly to the water, and our pupils contract so we can see every bubble of the froth.
We don't know from Brian's jpeg presentation whether he's captured the mist or not. If he has, then that should remain as an integral part of the composition, even the main focus as you mentioned. If he hasn't and the sky is totally blown, then there's a problem.
The fact that Brian was not sure which is the better composition implies that he failed to capture the mist, possibly as a result the long exposure he used to blur the waterfall.
-
Well...there's nothing I can do about the brightness of the mist....but your dead right Russ, I like it the way it is. I'll definitely be going back to re-shoot on a clear day though.
Once again, thanks everyone for your comments, great feedback!
Cheers
Brian
-
If one is attempting 'art', there's no such thing as a 'correct' one, only a preferred one and a one preferred by whom. Irrespective of one's experience as a photographer and one's formal training and study of the masters, a photographer will tend to take a shot of a composition that interests him.
The difficulty then becomes one of rendering to monitor or print that initial impression that prompted or inspired one to take the shot.
Disappointment in the final result, especially with landscapes, is often due to the inability of the camera to capture with a single shot the detail, tonality and vibrancy of the original scene as witnessed by the eye. This is partly because the pupil of the eye is continually dilating and contracting as one's gaze shifts from one part of the real scene to the other. Furthermore, this dilation and contraction occurs almost instantly so we are hardly aware it's happening.
We look at the bright mist and our pupils contract so we see every whisp and drift. We shift our gaze to the dense undergrowth surrounding the waterfall and our pupils instantly dilate so we can absorb the fine detail in the shadows. We shift our gaze just slightly to the water, and our pupils contract so we can see every bubble of the froth.
We don't know from Brian's jpeg presentation whether he's captured the mist or not. If he has, then that should remain as an integral part of the composition, even the main focus as you mentioned. If he hasn't and the sky is totally blown, then there's a problem.
The fact that Brian was not sure which is the better composition implies that he failed to capture the mist, possibly as a result the long exposure he used to blur the waterfall.
Yes you're right Ray, I blew the mist, and your comments provide the good kick up the behind I deserved. The shot as is, is something I might be somewhat happy with, but obviously I could have done better. This has been by far the most productive thread for me so far.
Cheers
Brian
-
If one is attempting 'art', there's no such thing as a 'correct' one, only a preferred one and a one preferred by whom. Irrespective of one's experience as a photographer and one's formal training and study of the masters, a photographer will tend to take a shot of a composition that interests him.
You're right, Ray. "Correct" wasn't the right word. "Best composition" would be better. But I stand by what I said. There's a reason you decide to make a photograph, and the composition you saw that made you shoot the picture almost always is the best composition -- the one you shoot first. But that's only true if you've learned to throw a mental frame around the things you're looking at. Subsequent shots usually run down hill from that first one.
The difficulty then becomes one of rendering to monitor or print that initial impression that prompted or inspired one to take the shot.
Disappointment in the final result, especially with landscapes, is often due to the inability of the camera to capture with a single shot the detail, tonality and vibrancy of the original scene as witnessed by the eye. This is partly because the pupil of the eye is continually dilating and contracting as one's gaze shifts from one part of the real scene to the other. Furthermore, this dilation and contraction occurs almost instantly so we are hardly aware it's happening.
We look at the bright mist and our pupils contract so we see every whisp and drift. We shift our gaze to the dense undergrowth surrounding the waterfall and our pupils instantly dilate so we can absorb the fine detail in the shadows. We shift our gaze just slightly to the water, and our pupils contract so we can see every bubble of the froth.
We don't know from Brian's jpeg presentation whether he's captured the mist or not. If he has, then that should remain as an integral part of the composition, even the main focus as you mentioned. If he hasn't and the sky is totally blown, then there's a problem.
The fact that Brian was not sure which is the better composition implies that he failed to capture the mist, possibly as a result the long exposure he used to blur the waterfall.
I agree with all of that. Yes, I do post-processing in Photoshop to reproduce what I saw, but I don't crop in order to improve the composition. As far as I can see, this photograph can't be improved by cropping. As far as the "blown" sky is concerned, how much detail do you normally see in fog? But at this point we're talking about fairly subtle details that can't really be discriminated on a 72 ppi monitor.
-
Apologies John, after trying to pull back detail with sliders, forgot to burn. Nevertheless, I've had a go and think it makes a small difference. What do you think?
Cheers
Brian
-
You're right, Ray. "Correct" wasn't the right word. "Best composition" would be better. But I stand by what I said. There's a reason you decide to make a photograph, and the composition you saw that made you shoot the picture almost always is the best composition -- the one you shoot first. But that's only true if you've learned to throw a mental frame around the things you're looking at. Subsequent shots usually run down hill from that first one.
I agree with all of that. Yes, I do post-processing in Photoshop to reproduce what I saw, but I don't crop in order to improve the composition. As far as I can see, this photograph can't be improved by cropping. As far as the "blown" sky is concerned, how much detail do you normally see in fog? But at this point we're talking about fairly subtle details that can't really be discriminated on a 72 ppi monitor.
I find myself regularly cropping, simply because the composition I wanted when I took the photo does not fit into the aspect ratio of the camera. It's not realistic to expect a 1.5:1 (or whatever) aspect ratio to fit more than a small fraction of your photos, is it?
Peter
-
I find myself regularly cropping, simply because the composition I wanted when I took the photo does not fit into the aspect ratio of the camera. It's not realistic to expect a 1.5:1 (or whatever) aspect ratio to fit more than a small fraction of your photos, is it?
Peter
Brian,
From long habit looking through 1.5:1 viewfinders, I find that perhaps 90% of my images do, in fact, fit the proportion Peter mentions. But whenever a scene doesn't, or if I notice a better composition after the fact, I have no hesitation about cropping. I'm not doctrinaire about it at all. Cropping is a tool; use it when it is appropriate.
That said, I liked the original cropping better than the cropped version at first. But the latest revision of the cropped version, with the mist enhanced, works very well for me now. So I think you have two good photos; just don't show them both in the same exhibit!
Regards,
Eric
-
I see we're back to a previous discussion on cropping after the shot, where Jonathan Wienke advocated that it was not recommended for resolution considerations.
I find such rigidity of approach very Germanic. I'd recommend, crop whenever you feel like it. Of course try to get a shot which won't need cropping in post-processing. Doesn't everyone try to do that?
It's really a very silly argument.
-
Apologies John, after trying to pull back detail with sliders, forgot to burn. Nevertheless, I've had a go and think it makes a small difference. What do you think?
Cheers
Brian
I find those HSL sliders a bit unpredictable, especially when dealing with really bright, almost white areas. To me, it looks like that you've tried to pull down the brightness of the mist, and in so doing, you have reduced the brightness of the leaves on the right. Those leaves now have more visual weight to my eye, which unbalances the image. Based on this result, I recant my "burn the right" suggestion, because I think you'll get a similar effect.
I'll be honest with you, Brian, the more I look at the uncropped original, the more I like it. I think that whatever you do to it (if anything), you don't need to do much. Here's another suggestion, if you want to give this a shot:
1) Open in photoshop, and duplicate the layer.
2) Set the new layer blending mode to "soft light" for starters. Play around with the opacity percentages. You might also try "overlay", "hard light" or "vivid light" for more effect. Stop here if you're happy. For local adjustments, keep going:
3) Add a mask to that new layer and invert it (turn the background color from white to black). This will cause the new "effect" layer to disappear.
4) Select the mask, chose paintbrush, set a soft edge, and now change the background color to white. This allows you to "paint in" the new effect layer wherever you want to see it.
Sorry if you know all of this already. I find this procedure useful for local adjustments in photoshop. Let us know what you decide!
John
-
Brian, The burning seems to change the picture considerably, though, as I said earlier, we're into subtle enough differences that it's hard to be sure on a 72 ppi monitor. The unburned version makes the foggy valley the subject of the picture. The burned version shifts the subject to the very pretty red rock wall of the cliff. I like them both.
Congratulations on posting a picture that brought out this much comment. Wish I could see an actual print from this file. I'll bet it's stunning.
-
Commenting on the first post only: The reddish glow(?) in the rocks is faded too much in the cropped version. Some of the image could be cropped off of the right side without losing much, and the white sky isn't ideal, but I think you need to keep most of it.
-
I see we're back to a previous discussion on cropping after the shot, where Jonathan Wienke advocated that it was not recommended for resolution considerations.
I find such rigidity of approach very Germanic. I'd recommend, crop whenever you feel like it. Of course try to get a shot which won't need cropping in post-processing. Doesn't everyone try to do that?
It's really a very silly argument.
It's interesting that someone would consider the composition of a photo to be secondary to its sharpness (resolution). I guess these are the folks who you see at photo exhibitions with their nose 2 inches from the print, people whose own photos may be sharp as tacks but are aesthetically boring.
Peter
-
John,
I tried some local adjustments in lightroom and like you, I've decided it's better not to do much at all. I could post the result of what I did if you like but to be honest, there's not much point as I think it's better as is. Out of interest though, what I will do is post an unaltered conversion of a raw file from one of the brackets I did in case I decided to do a blend. Most times I like to use one frame and this is what I've done here. This might give an indication how really, really bright that mist was.
Russ,
Haven't had a print done at this stage, but when I do, if it's as stunning as you think I'll be sure to let you know....might even send you one.
Cheers
Brian
-
John,
I tried some local adjustments in lightroom and like you, I've decided it's better not to do much at all. I could post the result of what I did if you like but to be honest, there's not much point as I think it's better as is.
Brian
Goes to show that you took a really great shot to begin with. The "double S curve" makes the image for me. Well done (now go print the darn thing)!
John
-
It's interesting that someone would consider the composition of a photo to be secondary to its sharpness (resolution). I guess these are the folks who you see at photo exhibitions with their nose 2 inches from the print, people whose own photos may be sharp as tacks but are aesthetically boring.
Peter
Peter, I should let Jonathan speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he was saying. Keeping the pixels is just one, quite minor reason for composing on the camera. Integrity of vision is the most important one. There's certainly nothing wrong with cropping when it's necessary to confine the picture to an aspect ratio different from the aspect ratio of the camera, though if you need to do that often you really ought to buy a camera with the aspect ratio you want. But what Jonathan and I both were saying is that banging away more or less at random and then hoping to find a picture in the result once you're on the computer is a novice's approach to photography. That approach comes from an inability to actually look at what you're shooting and compose a picture properly. Keeping the extra pixels is a beneficial byproduct of taking the trouble to do proper composition, but not its raison d'etre.
In Florida in the winter I work with a group of people some of whom shoot with cameras that use the standard 2 x 3, 35 mm aspect ratio, and then crop every picture to a 4 x 5 ratio to fit a mat with an 8 x 10 opening, even though they have access to a very good mat cutter. I try to wean them away from their folly, but I rarely succeed.
-
Peter, I should let Jonathan speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he was saying. Keeping the pixels is just one, quite minor reason for composing on the camera. Integrity of vision is the most important one. There's certainly nothing wrong with cropping when it's necessary to confine the picture to an aspect ratio different from the aspect ratio of the camera, though if you need to do that often you really ought to buy a camera with the aspect ratio you want. But what Jonathan and I both were saying is that banging away more or less at random and then hoping to find a picture in the result once you're on the computer is a novice's approach to photography. That approach comes from an inability to actually look at what you're shooting and compose a picture properly. Keeping the extra pixels is a beneficial byproduct of taking the trouble to do proper composition, but not its raison d'etre.
In Florida in the winter I work with a group of people some of whom shoot with cameras that use the standard 2 x 3, 35 mm aspect ratio, and then crop every picture to a 4 x 5 ratio to fit a mat with an 8 x 10 opening, even though they have access to a very good mat cutter. I try to wean them away from their folly, but I rarely succeed.
You've said this twice now. Can you link back to where someone was suggesting "banging away more or less at random and then hoping to find a picture in the result once you're on the computer"? I can think of one freak who thought that making a high resolution panorama and then cropping images out of that was a good idea. But I don't think they overlapped with your tenure here.
I think Weinke's (spell?) suggestion was to take a series of photos at the time to cover all your options. Sorting between those at the PC later is little different than cropping at the PC later. So I think what you were saying and what Jonathan was saying were quite different. I think that you're point is that one should have the final print in mind at the time you take the image so that there is no need to crop. Jonathan's point was that a professional makes sure they have the shot regardless. (Same logic would apply to bracketing exposures and what not.)
-
You've said this twice now. Can you link back to where someone was suggesting "banging away more or less at random and then hoping to find a picture in the result once you're on the computer"? I can think of one freak who thought that making a high resolution panorama and then cropping images out of that was a good idea. But I don't think they overlapped with your tenure here.
I've said it more than twice. If you check the posts on User Critiques you'll find a whole series of suggestions to crop this way and crop that way, and suggestions from the original poster that maybe he ought to have cropped this way or that way.
I think Weinke's (spell?) suggestion was to take a series of photos at the time to cover all your options. Sorting between those at the PC later is little different than cropping at the PC later. So I think what you were saying and what Jonathan was saying were quite different. I think that you're point is that one should have the final print in mind at the time you take the image so that there is no need to crop. Jonathan's point was that a professional makes sure they have the shot regardless. (Same logic would apply to bracketing exposures and what not.)
It would be pretty hard to argue that you shouldn't cover the subject completely enough to make sure "you have the shot." Can you "link back" to someone who suggested that? I don't have time to check through several weeks of posts on LLS, but besides suggesting covering what you're shooting, Jonathan suggested not cropping, partly for better resolution. There were several posts on the subject in that one thread. If you check Peter's post, to which I responded, you'll find he said this:
It's interesting that someone would consider the composition of a photo to be secondary to its sharpness (resolution).
-
All of which isn't the same as "banging away more or less at random". But, whatever.
-
All of which isn't the same as "banging away more or less at random". But, whatever.
You're right. It's "whatever." That's the problem.
-
You're right. It's "whatever." That's the problem.
There's no problem. Nature is a combination of randomness and symmetry, and neither (in nature) is conducive to framing by a typical camera. Those who can make a satisfying image in spite of the limitations are the good photographers, no matter how they do it. Whatever.
-
Of the two, the first one is the better composition. The only way I'd do it differently would be to crop a little off the right.
-
I hope Brian doesn't mind my altering his image, but playing around with the small jpeg I see there's quite a lot of detail in that shot. Working with the RAW image (if there is one), I get the impressions there would be a lot of processing options as an alternative to cropping.
In the rendering below, I retrieved highlight detail with the shadows/highlight tool, changed the white balance, applied a bit of selective contrast enhancement, and increased vibrancy.
A greater focus of attention is now on the red cliff. This may not be preferred. Fair enough! However, if the detail is there to be recovered even in a small jpeg, then one might deduce that this is probably closer to what Brian saw when he pressed the shutter.
[attachment=15391:Modified_1.jpg]
-
I hope Brian doesn't mind my altering his image, but playing around with the small jpeg I see there's quite a lot of detail in that shot. Working with the RAW image (if there is one), I get the impressions there would be a lot of processing options as an alternative to cropping.
In the rendering below, I retrieved highlight detail with the shadows/highlight tool, changed the white balance, applied a bit of selective contrast enhancement, and increased vibrancy.
A greater focus of attention is now on the red cliff. This may not be preferred. Fair enough! However, if the detail is there to be recovered even in a small jpeg, then one might deduce that this is probably closer to what Brian saw when he pressed the shutter.
[attachment=15391:Modified_1.jpg]
Ray,
Of course I don't mind you fiddling with my image, I 'm here to learn what I can and It's clear that your processing skills are far greater than mine. It also seems I may not have blown the mist after all, as you have certainly extracted a fair bit more detail than I was able to. I assume you've done this in lightroom? If so would you be willing to post a screen shot of your workflow with amounts etc on the history panel? There is indeed a raw file BTW.
Cheers
Brian
I see how you've managed that to a certain extent, but when I darkened the highlight slider, I lost a lot of detail in the rock. Contrast adjustment pulled some back...is this where you applied the selective contrast?
-
Ray,
Of course I don't mind you fiddling with my image, I 'm here to learn what I can and It's clear that your processing skills are far greater than mine. It also seems I may not have blown the mist after all, as you have certainly extracted a fair bit more detail than I was able to. I assume you've done this in lightroom? If so would you be willing to post a screen shot of your workflow with amounts etc on the history panel? There is indeed a raw file BTW.
Cheers
Brian
I see how you've managed that to a certain extent, but when I darkened the highlight slider, I lost a lot of detail in the rock. Contrast adjustment pulled some back...is this where you applied the selective contrast?
Brian,
I don't use lightroom. I make major adjustments in ACR then further adjustments in CS3. Can't remember exactly what I did but I opened the image initially in ACR and made adjustments something like as follows:
[attachment=15397:ACR_window.jpg]
I then tweaked the contrast using USM, amount 50, radius 50, selecting areas with the lasso and feathering 10 pixels or so.
-
Thanks Ray, I wondered how you'd managed that rendering as every time I tried to lighten the mist I completely screwed the picture. Your version inspired me to go back and push things a little further though and I think I have come up with the scene as I remember it now. BTW, I tried to push things as far as you did in lightroom, and again it screwed the picture in a major way....I also have ACR 4.6 so opened the jpeg there and managed to come up with the same as you....interesting as I would have thought it to be the other way round where the jpeg would deteriorate! Nevertheless, that version is too hot for the scene as was, so here is the final edit. Thanks again to everyone...I wouldn't have been able to produce this result without your input.
Cheers
Brian
Oh and Russ, the print is pretty good!!
-
Thanks Ray, I wondered how you'd managed that rendering as every time I tried to lighten the mist I completely screwed the picture. Your version inspired me to go back and push things a little further though and I think I have come up with the scene as I remember it now. BTW, I tried to push things as far as you did in lightroom, and again it screwed the picture in a major way....I also have ACR 4.6 so opened the jpeg there and managed to come up with the same as you....interesting as I would have thought it to be the other way round where the jpeg would deteriorate! Nevertheless, that version is too hot for the scene as was, so here is the final edit. Thanks again to everyone...I wouldn't have been able to produce this result without your input.
Cheers
Brian
Oh and Russ, the print is pretty good!!
Brian,
That's far too dark and lacklustre. More work needs to be done.
Here's a technique in Photoshop for making adjustments whilst preserving highlight detail.
On the PC, click on 'channels RGB' whilst holding down CTRL. This selects the highlights.
Hold CTRL plus shift, then press I to invert.
Go to heading 'layer' then 'new adjustment layer'.
Select from 'new adjustment layer', levels, curves, brightness/contrast, etc, whatever you think might work.
Select something like 80% opacity.
Make adjustments to your heart's content, secure in the knowledge you will not blow highlights (within reason, of course ).
-
Okay Ray, how do we look now?
BTW, I think I noticed on another thread from a while back you mentioned you're a Queenslander (apologies if it's not you). Since Queensland is my Australian state of origin, I'm hoping for a 3 nil whitewash tonight.
-
Okay Ray, how do we look now?
BTW, I think I noticed on another thread from a while back you mentioned you're a Queenslander (apologies if it's not you). Since Queensland is my Australian state of origin, I'm hoping for a 3 nil whitewash tonight.
I think I'd prefer a little more saturation in the foliage, Brian. But it's your call. You don't have to stick with exactly what you remember seeing. The great thing about digital photography is you can get almost any effect you want.
I guess Queensland State of Origin won, didn't they? I'm afraid I don't follow the footy much. I'm a Queenslander but also a pom .
Here's the shot with a little more saturation of the yellows/greens. If you're not sure about an image, I find it's best to leave it for a while, a few months or even a few years, then come back to it.
[attachment=15435:02.jpg]
-
Brian, I assume you haven't made comparison prints of the variations you and others have tried on this thread. Have you tried comparing them by bringing up the original and a revision side by side on your monitor? To me, the only revision that came even close to the original was the one where you burned the right side a bit and brought out the red rocks a bit more at the expense of the fog. I've compared them all side by side with the original and I still prefer the original because of the way the fog adds mystery to the valley. Maybe that's not what you intended, but I think it's a winner.
Ray's got the right idea. Best leave it for a couple of months and then come back to it. Remember, the difference between an artist and a dilettante is that the artist knows when to stop.
-
Ray's got the right idea. Best leave it for a couple of months and then come back to it.
Russ,
Sounds like good advice because I'm a bit like this at the moment . I've made 3 separate prints, original, burned and most recent....and I think I could be happy with any of them. It's time to put this one aside for a while as you and Ray suggest.
Don't worry Ray, I was born in Scotland...but once a Qld'er always a Qld'er.
Cheers
Brian