Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: garyhill on February 24, 2013, 08:55:05 am
-
My third post to these forums. The attached image is a panoramic (8 image stitch) photo of a popular local local jetty not far from where I live. It was recently washed away when the river flooded. This is part of a portfolio of images that I am putting together to offer for sale in my local area. While the seams of the stitch are pretty good I can still just make them out at the bottom of the photo. Do others find this distracting as well? I also wonder if I the sky is a little too bright just above the wharf.
Comments welcome.
Cheers,
Gary
-
I do not find anything distracting; fine work. If anything, I would open up some details in the jetty, if only ever so slightly. I think it would help with the impression of depth, i.e., 3-D.
-
Oh yeah! Lovely.
-
Nice moody image and sweet light.
-
A very nice likeable image. If someone accepts that nothing is 100% perfect then there isn't anything - imo - to quibble about. An image like this should sell well and one that you wouldn't get tired of with respect to looking at.
-
I spotted the stitch marks, but I doubt I would have seen it unless you had mentioned it. You could try some cloning to disguise some of it - that's probably what I would do.
-
Thanks to all for the feedback and comments.
Cheers,
Gary
-
I do not find anything distracting; fine work. If anything, I would open up some details in the jetty, if only ever so slightly. I think it would help with the impression of depth, i.e., 3-D.
Yes, exactly.
Mike.
-
I like the shot very much, very relaxing and easy to look at and into.
I am not so sure about the black border though.
The border colour can have so much impact on the image and how we perceive its tones and contrast etc. In fact I'll bet, that if you showed the exact same image but with a white border, it would look much lighter and the shadows less dense. What colour/tone you use to frame a print is as often as much of an art form as the content of the image itself. According to Land's Retinex theory... well without getting too bogged down, here's an extract from Land's Retinex theory to explain what I mean:
Edwin Land, Ansel Adams, and the Retinex Theory
We can take another approach described by Edwin Land, inventor of the Polaroid Land instant photographic process. He theorized that the level of reflected light around an image modifies the appearance of that image. Placing a black and white print on a bright white wall will lower the perceived reflectance of the print; the white wall effectively overpowers our eyes. He estimated that black and white prints average twenty percent reflectance, that is they reflect approximately 20 percent of the light falling on them, and therefore the surrounding surfaces should also have twenty percent reflectance. In his opinion the actual color of the wall didn't matter, just as long as the reflectance was correct. His theory applies primarily to black and white, not color, images.
Ansel Adams, in his Autobiography, says this of Land's theory:
...This can be confirmed by looking at photographs in a lighted gallery through a black mailing tube, standing at a distance where the print area alone is observed and not the wall. The print is looked at through the tube for about ten seconds, then the tube is suddenly removed. The print will quickly drop in value, before the pupil of the eye is able to react. For many years I have been annoyed by the constant and monotonous use of white or near-white walls in museum displays of photography...
Dave
-
...In fact I'll bet, that if you showed the exact same image but with a white border, it would look much lighter and the shadows less dense...
Hmmmm... I always thought it is exactly the opposite, no?
-
Lovely tones in the image but I query whether that is enough to sustain this image. I note that there nothing much of interest in the approximately 80% of the image to the left of the pier and that there is nothing in the image to connect with the title, except . . . lots of water. I don't think the pleasure craft at the edges count. Where's a fishing boat or a fisherman when you need one?
I would experiment with PS content aware scaling to compress the middle area to see whether a narrower angle of view had enough interest. Or I would reshoot with something more interesting on the sea.
Roger
-
Personally I think the area on the left - despite it being small - is the point of interest and the jetty acts as a lead in to the distant boat. In the forum the image is small but displayed as a large print there will be enough shown to the left to see it as the focal point? I certainly wouldn't change anything with the content aware tool. When the image was shot a few steps to the right - assuming it was possible - would have reduced the gap. A scene where many images could have and should have been shot. :)
-
Hmmmm... I always thought it is exactly the opposite, no?
You know what Slobodan, you are absolutely right. It was very late last night over here when I posted that and I was obviously suffering from a severe case of not knowing the difference between my arse and my elbow ::)
I am glad I got the one in about the dog though, it seems it might be the only chance I will ever get .. ;D
Dave
-
Very nice pano.
I spotted the stitch marks, but I doubt I would have seen it unless you had mentioned it.
Same here. There appear to be some artifacts on the lower left side.
I'm curious how this looks as a print with very-high resolution. Anything that is barely noticable with 1600px may be very apparent in a print.
Like another reply, you might try to make the several fishing boats themselves more visible, perhaps by painting in some Shadow brush in ACR (or equiv in PS)?