Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 01 05 2012  (Read 2124 times)

Timo Löfgren

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
01 05 2012
« on: May 02, 2012, 07:19:14 AM »

.......
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8132
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2012, 07:34:17 AM »

Another image that you should be proud of…

Bravo
Logged
Francois

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2023
    • Worldwide Photography Expeditions
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2012, 08:29:53 AM »

I like the concept - but find it a little 'muddy' in the jpeg.

popnfresh

  • Guest
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2012, 10:14:26 AM »

I really like this seascape, and I hate seascapes.   ;)
Logged

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2362
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2012, 10:59:02 AM »

Wonderful rhythm in the rocks, elaborated by their fractal nature, and echoed by the sky. Deceptively simple but engaging. Thanks for sharing.
Scott

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2012, 11:07:15 AM »

Ah! What a lovely repetition of the gentle cloud shapes in the rocks! Given that is the essence of this picture (at least for me, of course), I do not mind the slight "muddiness" Josh noticed, as it helps the shapes to stand out.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11165
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2012, 12:29:15 PM »

Ah! What a lovely repetition of the gentle cloud shapes in the rocks! Given that is the essence of this picture (at least for me, of course), I do not mind the slight "muddiness" Josh noticed, as it helps the shapes to stand out.
I'm with Slobodan on this.

It's nice to have you back again, Timo!
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Les Sparks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 268
    • http://www.ncsparks.com
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2012, 12:36:27 PM »

Wonderful image.
Les
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2604
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2012, 02:48:03 AM »

An intriguing image indeed!

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5821
    • M&M's Musings
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2012, 02:08:54 AM »

Nicely done.  I saw the 'muddiness' referred to, but I'm sure that in a print it would be much better.

Mike.
Logged
If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~

My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
    • theimagingfactory
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2012, 11:42:18 AM »

With my other post in mind, here are my points of discussion:

Why is it that you choose not to utilize the full DR in reproduction? Seems some of the intrigue in this image is supposed to be in the darkest tones. Obviously you would want those drawn as best as possible, no?

This image doesn't seem to be balanced well, both in tones as well as composition. I would much prefer the yellow lines to all point slightly downward where the sea would come into the frame slanted as it does now. That way there would be a balance between the right and left side of the composition creating a fishbone pattern.

The top and bottom of the image seem to be separated from the whole. The top is graduated over an impossibly small length and therefore appears very unnatural and unrealistic. As B&W the sunset sky will tend to go from lighter to slightly darker as you come closer to the horizon. Doing a similar change upwards looses depth.

The bottom of the image doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to the composition. It tries to balance the unbalance in the darker right side, but it can't due to lack of contrast. The additional red oval shows another emptiness in the image composition. The lines point towards it, but nothing happens there, if there was it wouldn't be balanced in the frame properly.

The boulder in the front is also slightly too close to the edge. Possibly changing the vantage point so that all the yellow lines point downward could also move that rocky bit to the side of the frame where it could be cropped partly.
Logged
Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2012, 01:07:13 PM »

... here are my points of discussion...

WHAT!!!???

Timo Löfgren

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2012, 01:19:30 PM »

With my other post in mind, here are my points of discussion:

Why is it that you choose not to utilize the full DR in reproduction? Seems some of the intrigue in this image is supposed to be in the darkest tones. Obviously you would want those drawn as best as possible, no?

This image doesn't seem to be balanced well, both in tones as well as composition. I would much prefer the yellow lines to all point slightly downward where the sea would come into the frame slanted as it does now. That way there would be a balance between the right and left side of the composition creating a fishbone pattern.

The top and bottom of the image seem to be separated from the whole. The top is graduated over an impossibly small length and therefore appears very unnatural and unrealistic. As B&W the sunset sky will tend to go from lighter to slightly darker as you come closer to the horizon. Doing a similar change upwards looses depth.

The bottom of the image doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to the composition. It tries to balance the unbalance in the darker right side, but it can't due to lack of contrast. The additional red oval shows another emptiness in the image composition. The lines point towards it, but nothing happens there, if there was it wouldn't be balanced in the frame properly.

The boulder in the front is also slightly too close to the edge. Possibly changing the vantage point so that all the yellow lines point downward could also move that rocky bit to the side of the frame where it could be cropped partly.



I think I'll sell the camera off!  ;D
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14649
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2012, 01:47:36 PM »


I think I'll sell the camera off!  ;D



Now you understand why I believe that all 'critique' is nonsense?

;-)

Rob C

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8337
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 09:29:25 PM »

What Slobodan said, but I'm glad to see Oscar doing serious critiques. I'm afraid we've all gone too far over to the "nice shot," and "+1" side. I've gotten in the habit of simply not commenting on stuff too blah to notice. None of us should do that.

As usual, Timo has turned in a splendid piece of work.

Roberto Frieri

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
    • www.robertofrieri.net
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2012, 03:48:57 PM »

I like this kind of composition and angle in landscape shots.
Furthermore you got a pleasant atmosphere and the black and white is so elegant.

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: 01 05 2012
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2012, 04:01:12 PM »

I agree with opgr on one point, the bottom of the frame doesn't seem to be pulling its weight. I think the image should end somewhere near the lowest rock. The business with the yellow lines? I'm not seeing it, I don't mind the "empty space" to the left at all, it feels to me like a nice negative space to balance the stone shapes right. I find the high contrast at the horizon line slightly distracting.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up