Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on November 28, 2012, 01:05:50 pm
-
Comments? Preference?
Jeremy
-
I like 'em both, Jeremy, very much. But #1 is my pick. The character walking away toward the distant peaks is what makes the picture. It's not nearly as effective when he turns away from the mountains. Bravo!
-
Comments? Preference?
Wow.
I like the first one better, for both the placement and angle of the figure.
Brian
-
I am an unreconstructed fan of abstract landscapes, and see a real cracker with a severe crop of the top centre only - the swooping lines and the delicate feathering of the sand surface, and a backdrop of mountains giving cool contrast.
This whole scene I find less interesting - but I know I have rather an odd eye for such things!
-
I have to agree with Lois.
-
I think that Lois makes note of an entirely different purpose to the image.
Is it a landscape? Or is it a metaphor for the journey of many; his striving and the task ahead of him.
For me, the first evokes more of the sense of this challenge facing us all. The second does not make that statement as coherently.
To strip away the figure and turn it into a celebration of nature's beauty writ large changes the genre all together and removes a sense of scale, also.
Cheers,
-
I also like the first one best, because the figure is walking away, and although you could also do a nice enough abstract landscape, I wouldn't be as interested. The only thing that doesn't work so well for me is the title. Technically correct, no doubt, and with some metaphorical link to the picture, but in the end distracting me, in a small way, from its impact.
-
#1 for me.
This image has several possible metaphors.
Ken may have point with regard to the naming of the image matching its creative expression.
Great capture nonetheless.
Tony Jay
-
#1 for me too.
-
I think that Lois makes note of an entirely different purpose to the image.
You are correct! That's why I stated my viewpoint first of all. We can all only record our reactions, but I realise that sometimes it is annoying when someone (i.e. me) doesn't get the point.
-
Thanks, all. I thought that the first was preferable to the second but it's very reassuring to have my gut feelings confirmed.
Lois and Pup, you're looking for an image that this photo wasn't intended to be. I have others which I think match your vision, and I've attached one of them (a six-shot stitch); there's another here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=72286.0) (second one). I'm very fond of both of them but I had something else in mind for this one: specifically, a sense of scale. These dunes are huge!
Ken and Tony, I was clumsy with my choice of name: I wanted to indicate that this was the last photo of the Mesquite dunes I intended to post. I meant the name to be the title of the thread, not of the photo: I don't much like to give titles to my photographs.
People's reactions are always interesting and very seldom annoying!
Jeremy
-
These dunes are huge!
I guess you mean huge area rather than huge height?
-
He may mean area as well. The Dunes are very tall. From the NPS website-
"Great Sand Dunes has the tallest dunes in North America. Star Dune rises 750 feet from its base to its crest. High Dune rises 650 feet from its base, but because it starts on higher ground, its crest is higher above sea level that of Star Dune. The highest dunes in elevation above sea level in the park are those closest to the mountains on the eastern edge of the main dunefield."
-
"The Dunes are very tall. ... Great Sand Dunes has the tallest dunes in North America...
Mesquite Flat Dunes (http://www.nps.gov/deva/naturescience/sand-dunes.htm) are in Death Valley NP California -- not in Great Sand Dunes NP (http://www.nps.gov/grsa/index.htm) Colorado.
-
sorry, i thought it was about the scrub on the edge of the dune. :-\
-
I guess you mean huge area rather than huge height?
Yes: if they were particularly high, an unfit, lazy, wheezing and overweight chap such as I would never have reached the top. Degrub, ignore my title!
Jeremy
-
For me , number one , but for none of the above reasons...the first thing that made itself present in the second was that the lower dune line (foreground) had become very static, and had it not been for the "figur" would have lost it's life... The first , though it is ever so subtle, contains an early brush of dynamism in that same foeground dune, but then is somewhat robbed of life by the centralityof the"figur".
So I'll take number 1, but with number 2's positioning of "figur" .
-
I think that Lois makes note of an entirely different purpose to the image.
I learnt something with this photo Jeremy. When I first saw it I immediately thought the figure "spoils" it as I wanted to see the dunes in all their splendour, unspoilt by people, it didn't dawn on me what the real purpose of the photo was. I need to take of the tinted glasses and really look next time.
Number 1 works the best for me.
-
I learnt something with this photo Jeremy. When I first saw it I immediately thought the figure "spoils" it as I wanted to see the dunes in all their splendour, unspoilt by people, it didn't dawn on me what the real purpose of the photo was. I need to take of the tinted glasses and really look next time.
Number 1 works the best for me.
Riaan, those were exactly my initial thoughts. I stood on the top of the dune, looking in irritation at this man who, merely by having arrived 15 minutes or so earlier than I, had stolen a march on me and was ruining my shot; and moreover, even if I waited until he disappeared, would have left a trail of footprints across a pristine expanse of sand.
Then I saw the light (metaphorically).
I think I managed to take more shots that please me in a couple of hours at those dunes than in several days anywhere else. It's a magical place.
Jeremy