Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chairman Bill on June 02, 2011, 12:42:50 pm
-
It's not street photography, and there's no cut logs, but C&C welcome just the same
-
It's not street photography, and there's no cut logs, but C&C welcome just the same
It's perfectly fine that it's not street photography. This isn't the Luminous Street Photograph website. It's also not the Luminous Logger website.
I like about 2/3 of this shot, but I feel you needed to pare it down some to concentrate on the wonderful tree reflections. The lower right corner, in particular, seems extraneous to me. But I hesitate to recommend cropping this photo. I would have moved the camera in closer on the water and/or used a longer lens.
-
Thats a great image, but I want to suggest something:
You have a lot of sharp details and (for my taste) its becoming too much.
I'd suggest to turn clarity/local contrast down globally and then restore it locally
to the level you have now with a brush and select the important stems and branches.
If you could make the sharpness more selective, I believe this image - which I like-
would become even better.
-
It's also not the Luminous Logger website.
You've got to love that one, haven't you? ;D
I wish I could be that quick . . .
John
-
Thats a great image, but I want to suggest something:
YOU HAVE A LOT OF SHARP DETAILS AND (FOR MY TASTE) ITS BECOMING TOO MUCH.
I'd suggest to turn clarity/local contrast down globally and then restore it locally
to the level you have now with a brush and select the important stems and branches.
If you could make the sharpness more selective, I believe this image - which I like-
would become even better.
I think too much is about right. I like it when there is too much as long as it doesn't spill. The lower right is a reach, but I don't find it as extraneous as Pop does; its corner lines with the bank on that side. I wouldn't throw it back.
Bruce
-
I think too much is about right. I like it when there is too much as long as it doesn't spill. The lower right is a reach, but I don't find it as extraneous as Pop does; its corner lines with the bank on that side. I wouldn't throw it back.
Bruce
Yes - its another aesthetic and of course possible - a matter of personal taste.
-
I think too much is about right. I like it when there is too much as long as it doesn't spill. The lower right is a reach, but I don't find it as extraneous as Pop does; its corner lines with the bank on that side. I wouldn't throw it back.
Bruce
I'm with Bruce on this one.
Eric
-
Is this the moment to say Me Too!?
Only kidding; tried it in colour?
Rob C
-
I wouldn't crop a centimetre. The bottom right provides a nice lead in to the main part of the image. Overall the blacks,whites and mid tones are nicely portrayed. A pleasing image. Was it your own work Bill? ;) :)
-
Is this the moment to say Me Too!?
Rob C
+1 ;)
-
+1 ;)
Good morning!
Rob C
-
Good morning!
Rob C
I hope Russ likes it!
-
Was it your own work Bill? ;) :)
Hey Stamper! Good to see you haven't changed!
You've been a bit thin on the ground lately - I hope it hasn't taken all that time away from here to think that one up? I detect a new subtlety here, and I like it! ;D
-
I hope Russ likes it!
You guys might be surprised to know how many shots similar to this one Cartier-Bresson made. You probably think I'm kidding, but I'm not. As Casey said, "you could look it up."
I like it. There's a there there -- in the reflections.
Don't crop it!
-
Hey Stamper! Good to see you haven't changed!
You've been a bit thin on the ground lately - I hope it hasn't taken all that time away from here to think that one up? I detect a new subtlety here, and I like it! ;D
I am still around on a regular basis. A little more mellower, but that could change for you. ;)
-
i like it. It's country street.
-
Thanks for the comments. I'm glad the consensus seems to be to not crop, not least 'cos I framed it deliberately for that bank to lead into the picture. I wasn't sure it was the right thing, and did think about cropping tighter around the pool, but decided I preferred it with the bank there.
The sharpening thing is interesting, not least because I have no idea what is & isn't appropriate sharpening; I just go with what looks right to me. At least it avoids a formulaic approach, though I concede I could know a bit more about the subject than I do.
And yes, all my own work :)
-
The sharpening thing is interesting, not least because I have no idea what is & isn't appropriate sharpening; I just go with what looks right to me. At least it avoids a formulaic approach, though I concede I could know a bit more about the subject than I do.
Well - as you could see from this thread the (creative - not capture or output) sharpening is highly subjective.
So - basically you can do what you want.
I personally prefer a tension between sharp and unsharp areas with some exceptions of pure unsharp or pure tack-sharp images.
What I often do (in Lightroom) is, to turn down clarity a lot, increase global contrast as far as sanely possible and
then paint back the clarity into areas I feel it belongs to. Of course the devel is in the details and sliders ...
but this can help you to create that tension and get excess sharpness out of the image.
Of course its best when it looks natural and is not to be seen afterwards as a PP trick.
-
I'm surprised no-one mentioned the way the reflections of the trees look very much like they could be the roots, particularly on the right-hand side?
-
"It's perfectly fine that it's not street photography. This isn't the Luminous Street Photograph website. It's also not the Luminous Logger website." :)
Amen to that!
It is interesting to me that, in spite of this forum's name, how often really good landscapes are met with disdain, particularly if they are color landscapes.
-
"It's perfectly fine that it's not street photography. This isn't the Luminous Street Photograph website. It's also not the Luminous Logger website." :)
Amen to that!
It is interesting to me that, in spite of this forum's name, how often really good landscapes are met with disdain, particularly if they are color landscapes.
It is a subjective matter of taste. No problem if they are even handed. Alas some aren't. :-X
-
"It's perfectly fine that it's not street photography. This isn't the Luminous Street Photograph website. It's also not the Luminous Logger website." :)
Amen to that!
It is interesting to me that, in spite of this forum's name, how often really good landscapes are met with disdain, particularly if they are color landscapes.
I think it's chiselled on the LuLa Tablets somewhere that the title was never meant to make it an 'exclusive to landscape' concept; after all, the landscape includes all of life, much of it transcending any outdoor phenomenon that's currently around.
I would also suggest that were the non-landscape people expelled with a roll of thunder and flashes of lighting (it's catching, Fred!), it would lose a hell of a lot of its viewers. Why? Because you can't live on caviar all day long.
Rob C
-
It is interesting to me that, in spite of this forum's name, how often really good landscapes are met with disdain, particularly if they are color landscapes.
I can't recall an instance when a really good landscape was met with disdain in this forum. And particularly not merely because it was a landscape and not some other genre. Of course, one man's "good" can be another's "awful", so it's possible there was one you liked that was ripped apart by the forum's resident pitbulls. In which case you have my condolences. ;D