Thanks to everybody who commented on my picture. I can honestly say that I enjoyed each and every comment because of the author's level of expertise it reveals, something I miss on other forums.
I expected the strong blue to receive both criticism and sympathy, just as it actually happened. It proofs to me that it would be foolish to take only pictures in a way that guarantees acceptance and avoid the renditions that may be rejected. Instead we should always take the picture that we like, and then respect the criticism and enjoy the sympathy.
I initially removed the blue cast to have the BG mountains as natural as possible and they looked repelling. Natural, but repelling. So I decided to move in the opposite direction and liked what I saw, an image full of contrasts. Besides the luminosity contrast that nicely shows the ripples in the sand, there's also contrast between the soft curves of the sand and the rugged mountains in the distance, as well as the contrast between the cold blue and the warm brown of the sand. The fading sliver of bright white behind the mountains ads a touch of "out-of-this-world".
A special thank you to Patricia who took the time to go through some more of my pictures and analyze them. She correctly concludes that using strong colors is quite typical for me. Color contrast is a tool that I like to use for various effects. In the image here the strong blue does initially attract attention, but it also obscures detail in the distant mountains and thus directs the viewer's eye back to the subject.
However, calling the use of strong colors a hallmark of how I see things is not quite correct. I have a good number of images in my catalog that are outright meek in the color department. I will soon post an image of a windmill that is pale compared to the image here, and for a good reason: the scene required it.
Thanks,
Jens
