Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Walt Roycraft on July 28, 2011, 02:58:50 pm

Title: Falls
Post by: Walt Roycraft on July 28, 2011, 02:58:50 pm
Hello, I'm hoping for some honest critique of this image.  I have been a commercial photographer for 30+ years and am interested in the fine art landscape.
Does this image have any merit?
Thanks for your time.
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: wolfnowl on July 28, 2011, 03:16:09 pm
It's well exposed, well composed and well made.  Quite nice.  Spectacular?  No.  But quite nice.


Mike.
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: PeterAit on July 28, 2011, 08:27:15 pm
Pretty enough, but rather banal with the cottony water. Much of the water looks to be washed out, just white with no detail. I wonder if you might have gotten closer for a more interesting shot.
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: louoates on July 28, 2011, 09:40:08 pm
I agree with "nice" but not spectacular. I think you need spectacular for any salable b&w fine art.
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: Rob C on July 29, 2011, 03:34:05 am
Hello, I'm hoping for some honest critique of this image.  I have been a commercial photographer for 30+ years and am interested in the fine art landscape.
Does this image have any merit?
Thanks for your time.



Walt, after thirty years you should know better than to ask other photographers for opinion! If we had any worth squat we'd all be too busy sailing to spend time here at a computer.

Worse, we are probably the least picture-buying group there is. On the other hand, I imagine that we buy more photo books than most other groups.

Rob C
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 29, 2011, 04:15:37 am
Actually, I feel more attracted by the forest than by the falls. I like the misty and foggy quality of the light in the trees. But I feel that the composition is just too much of heads on.
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: Walt Roycraft on July 29, 2011, 06:42:21 am
Pretty enough, but rather banal with the cottony water. Much of the water looks to be washed out, just white with no detail. I wonder if you might have gotten closer for a more interesting shot.

I agree about the "cottony"(is that a word?) water.  I will try and re work it.  I don't want to be closer.  Thanks
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: Walt Roycraft on July 29, 2011, 06:44:56 am


Walt, after thirty years you should know better than to ask other photographers for opinion! If we had any worth squat we'd all be too busy sailing to spend time here at a computer.

Worse, we are probably the least picture-buying group there is. On the other hand, I imagine that we buy more photo books than most other groups.

Rob C

 ;D How true, but I still like to ask
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: Walt Roycraft on July 29, 2011, 06:48:10 am
Actually, I feel more attracted by the forest than by the falls. I like the misty and foggy quality of the light in the trees. But I feel that the composition is just too much of heads on.

My feelings exactly.  As I worked the image the forest is what came alive to me.  Maybe after the less "cottony" water it will be better.  I did capture another angle of the scene so it wasn't straight on, but it did not work, mainly because you lost that corridor into the woods.
Title: Re: Falls
Post by: EduPerez on July 29, 2011, 09:08:01 am
I liked it very much; thanks.