Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on July 22, 2017, 08:12:50 am
-
?
Jeremy
-
?
Nice one Jeremy.
Where I live, the pavements look relatively neat and boring compared to this.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Great potential Jeremy. Hover that sky is way too crunchy even for my taste. I like the composition and b/w rendering very much.
-
... Ho[we]ver that sky is way too crunchy even for my taste...
How's that even possible!? ;)
-
Great potential Jeremy. Hover that sky is way too crunchy even for my taste. I like the composition and b/w rendering very much.
What do you mean by "crunchy"?
Edit: too grainy, perhaps? It's more visible on the jpeg than on the full-size version in LR, but this might be an improvement.
Jeremy
-
What do you mean by "crunchy"?...
Too much Clarity applied.
-
Do you have a similar shot at the elevation of the "pavement" ?
-
I like it and I think that degree of "crunchiness" is ok in a mono image when it would be too much in color.
-
I like it as it is… For me, don't change it, it is spectacular.
-
Yes, the graininess in the sky, or clarity as Slobodan, or crunchiness as others, would say was what I was adressing. EVEN FOR ME😉 I realize it's an esthetic or aesthetic concern, it just seems to me you have an opportunity for contrasting the textural differences in the sky and land, again up to you obviously. I say to-MAY-to, you say to-MAH-to. Again, really like the image composition and monochrome treatment.
-
I like it as it is… For me, don't change it, it is spectacular.
+1.
-
What do you mean by "crunchy"?
Edit: too grainy, perhaps? It's more visible on the jpeg than on the full-size version in LR, but this might be an improvement.
Jeremy
This second one is an improvement. The "crunchiness" should be in the pavement and "stump" as it is; with the sky being softer, it sets up an almost subliminal contrast and acts as a foil to the rest of the photograph.
-
"Crunchiness" isn't the problem. The problem is that the base of the tree blends too much with the rocks. I suppose Jeremy could lie on his back and shoot upward so the whole tree is stark against the sky, but then the rocks are gone. There are two subjects in this picture, a situation that produces some confusion for the eye, and I don't really see a way around the problem.
-
"Crunchiness" isn't the problem. The problem is that the base of the tree blends too much with the rocks. I suppose Jeremy could lie on his back and shoot upward so the whole tree is stark against the sky, but then the rocks are gone. There are two subjects in this picture, a situation that produces some confusion for the eye, and I don't really see a way around the problem.
I see what you're saying, Russ. The two do blend, but that can be considered a good thing, as I see the tree as an extension of the rock - both are old, weathered, gnarly and locked in place. The sky, on the other hand, is fresh, new and "moving on".
-
Well, I'll at least have to give you credit for a nice try, Terry. Great (if unconvincing) argument my friend.
-
This second one is an improvement. The "crunchiness" should be in the pavement and "stump" as it is; with the sky being softer, it sets up an almost subliminal contrast and acts as a foil to the rest of the photograph.
+1
This is what I was trying to say. Again, personal preference.