Topic: Little house (Read 2442 times)

sdwilsonsct · « **on:** February 18, 2015, 10:23:08 pm »

...on the prairie.
I think I prefer the isolation in 1, but 2 still feels pretty empty in spite of more elements.
Feedback welcome.

Paulo Bizarro · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:39:45 am »

Different feelings from the 2 photos, for me #2 provides more context, while #1 has a more dynamic framing (taken lower to the ground).

Bob_B · « **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2015, 09:42:02 am »

I agree with Paulo, these images are different. FWIW, I like the first more, as it gives me a feeling of space, movement (in the clouds), and isolation. Something about the hothouse or greenhouse structure (behind the house) in the second doesn't appeal to me, but I'm not sure why.

Chris Calohan · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2015, 10:10:36 am »

I too agree with Paulo and for the same reasons. I do like both images but something in each leaves me wanting more.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2015, 12:24:41 pm »

Both are very nice, but the first one really moves me.

churly · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2015, 05:36:13 pm »

Nice shots Scott. FWIW I think the first one is stronger because of the singular context of the house in the prairie. I have been very much enjoying what you have been doing with the prairies over the last couple of years. I don't know if you follow Chuck Kimmerle's work at all but he also has a nice touch with the plains.
Chuck

pcgpcg · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:33:57 pm »

Just for fun... you might try removing the shed between the house and the trees in #2. I'd love to see just the house and the trees.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2015, 06:57:22 pm »

Too cute in color. Might come handy as a real estate ad, though. More interpretation and drama possibilities in b&w. Me thinks.

sdwilsonsct · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2015, 10:24:14 pm »

Many thanks for your input, folks. I think #2 might be better with a more interesting centre object. On the other hand, the composition (inverted triangle) just doesn't work.

That shed, Bob, is a quonset: a common, cheap and wind-proof machinery shed. There is an even uglier plywood version I may inflict on these pages eventually.

Chuck, I get Kimmerele's newsletter: inspiring.

Slobodan, B&W loses that nice sky. And might produce gray snow.

luxborealis · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2015, 10:37:24 am »

The first is evocative; the second pedestrian, IOW, it is what we expect to see, nothing left to the imagination. The first, however, is powerful.

sdwilsonsct · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2015, 11:35:17 am »

Thanks, Terry.
I included #2 because often what I think is weak gets positive feedback. Not in this case.

I still like the premise of #2: here are some elements of a farm set down in the huge empty whiteness. But it could be done better.

luxborealis · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2015, 02:02:14 pm »

Quote from: sdwilsonsct on February 21, 2015, 11:35:17 am

Thanks, Terry.
I included #2 because often what I think is weak gets positive feedback. Not in this case.

I still like the premise of #2: here are some elements of a farm set down in the huge empty whiteness. But it could be done better.

Yes - perhaps if the farm elements were smaller, occupying just the left or right bottom ¼.

stamper · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2015, 05:53:50 am »

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 19, 2015, 06:57:22 pm

Too cute in color. Might come handy as a real estate ad, though. More interpretation and drama possibilities in b&w. Me thinks.

I agree with this.

sdwilsonsct · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2015, 08:29:47 am »

Less cute, sure, but I still prefer colour.

Also here is a PM-suggested version with less blue.

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2015, 01:34:07 pm »

The subdued blue version works nicely for me. It is a big improvement on the original, and I still prefer it to the B&W version (although 90% of my own work is just B&W).

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2015, 05:46:38 pm »

I had more in mind something like this, but I understand that may not be your cup of tea:

P.S. I have no idea how my version ended up so heavily pixelated

sdwilsonsct · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2015, 08:15:48 pm »

Thanks, Eric and Slobodan, and Chris for the blue-reduction suggestion.

Slobodan -- I like the overall direction you have taken, but I am unfamiliar with B&W processing. Hints??

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2015, 09:35:17 pm »

Quote from: sdwilsonsct on February 22, 2015, 08:15:48 pm

...Slobodan -- I like the overall direction you have taken, but I am unfamiliar with B&W processing. Hints??

Done in Lightroom, by darkening the blues significantly, plus some vignetting, clarity, and local adjustment brush to lighten up the side wall and top window.

Mark Lindquist · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2015, 06:23:19 pm »

Here's my take on a black and white. I prefer drama yet not heavy handed.

Lab color adjustments, 5 color layers, balanced and blended, too many light blending (dodge and burn) applications to count,
black and white conversion with secret sauce, simple layers adjustment, etc.

Mark Lindquist · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2015, 08:28:29 pm »

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 22, 2015, 05:46:38 pm

I had more in mind something like this, but I understand that may not be your cup of tea:

P.S. I have no idea how my version ended up so heavily pixelated

Looks like noise to me - overly processed. Unless you used a flyswatter to screen it with.... :-)

Author Topic: Little house (Read 2442 times)