Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: churly on December 10, 2011, 07:14:28 am
-
I am intrigued by the palette that opens up just before dark and the simplicity of the long exposures.
Thanks for having a look.
(http://churly.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v36/p225399431-5.jpg)
(http://churly.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v36/p358397628-5.jpg)
(http://churly.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v36/p408476311-5.jpg)
-
Gorgeous photographs - wonderful vision and technique at a truly magical time. Great diagonals, lovely texture. All three images are very tactile.
If I had to choose between 1 and 2, I would choose #1. While I prefer the colour palette of #2, I'm drawn to the subtle, but stronger composition of #1. In #2 there is small group of defined stones that are too centred for me. My eye is drawn to them because they are so defined, but it's drawn to the centre which, compositionally leaves me in the middle rather than being drawn through the scene. Whereas in #1, that same group of stones, being left of centre, invites my eye to then explore left to right through the scene. To my eyes, being off-centre creates more movement; it's more dynamic. Subtle, but apparent if only a subliminal level.
Image 3 is equally beautiful. A slight crop of the left and slightly more to the right side would make the photograph more square and may strengthen the dynamic between the three large rocks. As it is, I find my eye wandering into the right becoming slightly "lost".
-
Nice!!! Rich with lots of dimensionality. I especially like the top right corner of #1. It finishes off the diagonal while inviting our imagination to ramble a little further off-frame.
Scott
-
Lovely, all three of them!
IMHO, Terry's comments and suggestions are right on the money.
Eric
-
Nicely done! I too agree with Terry.
Mike.
-
The first is great.
You should decide what you like, showing two very similar photos are not making it a stronger impact, I understand that you are looking for an advise here but the first two photos are equally great.
Third image is over sharpened in photoshop.
-
Thanks everyone for the comments. Particularly to Terry for providing a careful, thoughtful and instructive critique.
I would like to pose a question to Terry or anyone that has some thoughts on this - I often find that my reaction to the elements of an image depends on the scale (size vs viewing distance) at which it is viewed. That is, a full screen view has a different impact than a small view (as seen in most web galleries) and the elements interact differently. That is a reflection of the way we parse things spatially. It is kind of like looking at a print in a gallery compared to a 5x7. I suspect that those folks that have a lot of gallery experience can do the translation but probably not most of us. Do you view this as an issue or is your response to an image independent of the scale of the presentation?
I would appreciate any thoughts that anyone might have.
Chuck
-
While I'm generally not a fan of long exposure water images, these I love. Especially #3, it evokes a mystery and emotional depth that's quite compelling.
I wouldn't crop the right edge at all, that little rock barely above the water in the upper right is important to the overall feeling of the image.
On the size/scale/distance effect, for me it's a problem. I have a number of things where I love the 16x20 print, but on a monitor they are very blah. Vertical compositions seem to have the biggest issue. I've gotten reasonably good at "seeing through" it and knowing what will print well, but size and presentation definitely have an effect on my reaction to an image.
-
Thanks for the comment Rich - particularly your thoughts on the affect of presentation size. Maybe the topic has been discussed elsewhere but I haven't seen it and I find it hard to believe that scale doesn't play a significant role on how we see and feel about the interaction of various elements in an image.
-
Chuck, you make a good point about spatial relationships and size of presentation. My comments tend to directed to the actual size I see, rather than mentally upscaling the photograph to a large format print. I'm not actively thinking of the image as much larger; I'm not convince fit makes a big difference, at least to my thinking. However it may be the basis of what Rich points out regarding the importance of the rock in the upper right - in the context of a larger print it might just work, or it might just mean that there is an even larger area of "empty" space beneath the rock.
Or - dare I suggest - digitally "move" the rock to a point further left so it becomes part of the rock system rather than being an "asteroid on a different arc". I know what I suggest is digital anathema to many. It's not something I would do without careful thought, but I know painters do it all the time. Nature is perfect, after all (except when it comes to satisfying the minds of human control/design freaks!) ;)
-
I really like the third one. Something magical about the colors and the lighting.
Very dream like.
-
Yes, the third one is really special. Excellent work.
-
Churly, I'm with the #3 crowd! I love this technique and I particularly like this shot. The colors and the sense of depth with the rocks in the distance make it for me over the others. The simplicity, sense of motion and the colors work for me. They remind me of shots I've seen before of ice on a dark beach at night with the water moving over it. These are just lovely.