Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: MoreOrLess on July 05, 2013, 12:56:31 pm
-
(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2932/u89k.jpg)
-
Monet would love it.
-
It is really a lovely picture. I find the buildings on the extreme right a little distracting and I am sure even Russ would not mind a tiny crop there!
William
-
It is really a lovely picture. I find the buildings on the extreme right a little distracting and I am sure even Russ would not mind a tiny crop there!
William
It'll probabley depend who I print it for, I'd likely crop both sides a little for myself but the bridge is pretty well known locally so I'd keep it in if I was printing to sell.
-
I probably would crop the right side back to the second-nearest tree, just to keep the eye from leaking out of the frame on that side. Once the eye travels over to the bridge it's really hard to get it back into the frame. Mask the right side with a piece of paper and you'll see a huge difference in the dynamics of the composition. But a beautifully atmospheric shot, however cropped.
-
Select it and do a content-aware fill. You'll have to clean up a bit after that, but that'll get rid of the distraction on the right. I'm not really sure it's a problem, but it does draw your eye.
-
I would keep those distant structures. They give the image space. It is cramped without them.
-
Heres a cropped version for comparison...
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/541/87o6.jpg)
-
Heres a cropped version for comparison...
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/541/87o6.jpg)
Less good, I'd say.
Jeremy
-
I would keep those distant structures. They give the image space. It is cramped without them.
The structures give the image a sense of depth which the cropped version doesn't. The cropped version is one dimensional. I have no problem with my eyes moving from centre to right because I can start over again and view the church which is obviously the focal point. A very nice image that is well processed and would look good in a calendar.
-
For once, I'll agree with Russ' usual advice: get it right in-camera. Otherwise, sloppy composition is going to give you all sort of headaches in post, like this example shows. Neither version works, as the church should not have been positioned so centrally in the first place.
-
Having seen the cropped version, I concur that it lacks depth. However, for me the structures on the right while they do give depth, wreck the compositional coherence of the shot. Like SB said, this may be an image that's just not workable. Happens to me all the time.
-
My suggestion would be to go back and photograph the scene again with the camera aimed a little more to the right, to put the church a bit left of center and to include a bit more at the right, so the distant structures don't crowd the edge so much.
The scene has much good potential, and this shot is almost there, IMHO.
Eric M.
-
. . .the church should not have been positioned so centrally in the first place.
Exactly! The church needs balance from the color and light of the structures on the right. How about a re-shoot, More?
-
I'v actually tried a lot to avoid having the church central in the past but the location makes it quite difficult, to the right of the image you've got a rather ugly gravel path that becomes distracting(to be honiest I think even more greenery that side might unbalance the pic), especially when shooting wide enough to get a good amount of the greenery and cannel in the foreground. The left does have a few more options but not at the time of day I took this shot, several large buildings would be in deep shadow.
What I tried for in this shot was to balance it with the large tree to the right and the smaller thin tree to the left by boosting the contrast of both a little, aiming for more of a "line of interest" in the upper half rather than just the church. A version with a bit more contrast boosting to the trees and the bridge contrast and brightness reduced...
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5766/6be0.jpg)
-
As Alan said, sometimes there's no solution -- at least with a camera. Monet would have had no problem with it, though.
-
As Alan said, sometimes there's no solution -- at least with a camera. Monet would have had no problem with it, though.
Right! He would have cropped a bit and perhaps used Content-Aware Move to get the church and the other buildings in just the right locations. ;D
-
Right! He would have cropped a bit and perhaps used Content-Aware Move to get the church and the other buildings in just the right locations. ;D
Nah, he just would have used the brush tool. ;)
-
So, crop it to the right, go stand in the water, Get another camera body capable of shooting 16:9 so the church isn't so central. Hmm I don't think any of those suggestions work... And Monet would have wanted more blossoms on the lilies. Apart from that, you, I presume like the image, I like the image. Most people don't have time to stand and calculate angles etc. I repeat, nice image, I'd be pleased. P.s. I'm glad you didn't convert it to B&W.....
-
So, crop it to the right, go stand in the water, Get another camera body capable of shooting 16:9 so the church isn't so central. Hmm I don't think any of those suggestions work... And Monet would have wanted more blossoms on the lilies. Apart from that, you, I presume like the image, I like the image. Most people don't have time to stand and calculate angles etc. I repeat, nice image, I'd be pleased. P.s. I'm glad you didn't convert it to B&W.....
Although I did wonder what it might have looked like with an infra red filter. ;)