Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Kerry L on June 07, 2012, 09:02:01 am
-
Cheltenham badlands, early one morning.
The formation was exposed by poor farming practices in the 1930s that led to soil erosion and exposed the underlying shale.The formation is mostly red in colour due to iron oxide deposits with some faint green streaks due to ground water percolation changing the red iron oxide into green iron oxide.
Comments are welcome.
-
A sense of scale would help me.
Rob C
-
I like it without a sense of scale. This leaves something for my imagination to play with.
Eric
-
+1
-
I like it just the way it is!
-
A sense of scale would help me.
Rob C
Translation of "A sense of scale:" = "An attractive nude of the female persuasion." ;)
-
That doesn't help! Everyone knows there's a 50 Foot Woman around someplace!
-
Surreal landscape but excellently captured.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Nice lines keep the eye engaged.
Scott
-
Nice lines keep the eye engaged.
Scott
I concur. I almost feel that the shadows should be more prominent though - to emphasise those lines and rythm.
-
Well done. Thanks for sharing it!
Mike.
-
A sense of scale would help me.
Rob C
Kerry, I really like this shot, but also find myself agreeing with Rob, is it a small sod of earth between your feet or a huge range of valleys taken from high altitude?
I just feel it would be even more satisfying if I knew that from the image.
Dave
-
Yes Dave & Rob,
After Rob mentioned this, I lean toward agreeing with him. There is very little in this landscape area that would give meaningful scale, a couple of trees, literally, and a few boulders (and unfortunately the occasional pop can or coffee cup). Both would have taken away from the simplicity that I was trying to achieve.
BTW the "waves" or ridges actually are about 3 to 4 feet deep.
-
Thanks Kerry for this opportunity to comment.
I love the ambiguity of sense of scale. I there was a shrub, or a tree.... or heaven forbid a 50 foot attractive nude women draped over the landscape... my mind would be satisfed.. (perhaps not with the 50 foot attractive nude woman LOL) ...but my mind would not keep enquiring about the sense of scale.... I would not keep continuing looking for cues to give me some insight into this. Having an absence of these cues makes it more compelling for me.
I am however uncomfotable about the cropping of the lovely blue colour at the top left. I think the image would be strengthened if therer was more of this in the composition , rather than just having it cut through in the manner of this framing.
Julie
-
I have no expectation or need for a sense of scale in this quite wonderful image.
It is NOT about the reality for me, but about how an aspect of earthly reality can be a window to the imagination and the world of fantasy.
Thanks for the image,
-
Translation of "A sense of scale:" = "An attractive nude of the female persuasion." ;)
I think in this answer lies the key to what we are seeing. If we were take abstract like images of the human form, they would not necessarily be easily identifiable, but could command our attention, just like any dunes. We would only want a greater scale if we wanted to more clearly identify what we are looking at. And although I kind of Agree with Jule, the fact is, like many things we shoot, to alter the perspective or move a little introduces a lot of other unwanted parts. I know the place well, its the same one that luxborealis (Terry) shot at. See, different photographers produce different perspectives. And I have my own perspective on this wonderful place. A good start Kerry. You will never exhaust this small but awesome place.
JMR
-
There is very little in this landscape area that would give meaningful scale, a couple of trees, literally, and a few boulders (and unfortunately the occasional pop can or coffee cup). Both would have taken away from the simplicity that I was trying to achieve.
When you initially posted the photograph, you felt compelled to immediately describe what the photo's content is. And why not? It's an interesting story! Is it possible to include an object that would simultaneously keep the composition's overall simplicity, create a sense of scale, and tell a story about the image's content?
-
I think that the nature of 'abstracts' isn't as simple as people think.
In my personal definition, a true abstract leaves you wondering what you are looking at because it is a pleasing collection of colour and pattern and nothing more recognizable than that.
In the case of the Red Waves, we know that we are looking at Mother Earth. Once we are aware of that, a wish arises to know more precisely what's being shown, and in that case I can't say that Red Waves really, really fits my personal notion of the abstract. So what does, then?
http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/foundpaintings2.html
provides a clue to how I see the nature of true abstract work. The lovely shots shown there tick all the boxes. Again, for me.
I suppose that it boils down either to a need for more information in order for a shot to work, or that, in the case of true abstracts, further information will actually detract from the image.
Rob C