Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: David Eckels on October 24, 2013, 08:42:41 am
-
Been so busy with shows that I thought it was time to get back to photography! Posting these and the question is: Color, B/W, or neither? Thanks.
-
Definitely needs the color, David. The contrast between blue sky and light on the hill is what gives your eye a resting place and makes the picture.
-
+1 about needing colour.
-
David,
I am sorry to say that particularly in this instance I favour the B&W rendering. There is a mystique and the image grants the viewer a great opportunity to invent their own narrative. On the other hand, to me, the colour version is a done deal — it makes a statement but asks no questions provides no temptation for the imagination.
Cheers,
W.
-
Both could work. Well seen.
However, I find the blocked shadows a distraction. They are not graphic enough to serve as a silhouette, nor natural enough to provide a gentle lead-in to the main point of interest. The contrast between the light grass in the foreground and blocked shadows in the bushes is also not very believable.
Sky is a bit muted, muddy, especially in the color version. I also find the central placement of the main point of interest a bit out of balance, compositionally, but could live with it (especially if opening the shadows in the foreground serves as a counter-balance).
Once again, well observed.
-
David, don't think either works...will put some more detailed thoughts later./B
-
Thanks for the comments. I am struggling with this one and your points are very helpful.
Russ, Robbie, and Walter. Thanks. There's something there and your comments encourage me to continue searching for it. Russ, that's what I wanted to achieve in terms of a "resting place" and it was that patch of sunlit grass that caught my eye. Walter, interesting take on the B/W vs color. I will have to ponder that.
Slobodan, the shadows are not blocked in the psd so I fear that is the jpeg rendering. I could lighten the shadows more, but don't want to go too far in the HDR direction (it's a single exposure). Could also prettify the yellows in the lower grasses and the sky, but those too would be PS enhancements. Also the sky is that muddy tone as we are heading into "inversion" season here in SLC. I will think about your balance point. I think it is that contrast between the lighted crest and the shadows that intrigued me, plus there's some subtle orange in the scrub oak. When I saw it, I said "cool!" but I haven't found the handle yet, obviously :P
Brandt, would love to hear you critique, so please follow up if you have the time.
All, thanks. This may be the proverbial "fuzzy concept" or at least until I can properly express what initially drew me in, which is that patch of lighted grass. Hmmmmm....
-
Had yet another go at it with helpful suggestions from Slobodan and Brandt. Thanks in advance!
-
Colour for me, too, David, but I think I would try to alter the shade of sky. I personally wouldn't bother much about detail in the close slope; I see the idea as being about the sunlit crest. I don't think detail matter when atmosphere is the goal - it's not documentary, after all.
Rob C
-
Dave...I'm liking that last rendition. ;)
-
I second Rob C's opinion. With decreased foreground shadow, you lose the tension between the dark and the sunlit highland.
It may work if the shadows are lightened less.
Regards,
Dale.
-
I allowed myself to do a slightly exaggerated edit:
-
I allowed myself to do a slightly exaggerated edit:
Interesting!