Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: duboisst on January 06, 2015, 03:54:07 pm
-
I was asked for a my subdued version. Well, I have one that's a bit wider then the last. I sincerely hope it is displayed the way I intended.
Please comment, my art is work in progress.
-
This one works really better for me.
The sky matches the now the buildings!
Thierry
-
The other one represents what I really saw but ok. I'll take a positive reply where I can get it!
With kind regards,
-Stephen
-
This one may not be as correct as the other, but it is much more believable, IMHO.
-
I like your first version just fine. Sometimes nature is a little gauche.
-
Thank you Scott!
-
I find this version more "believable" and more likeable. There are occasions when a photographer has to reduce the impact if he/she is showing an image to an audience if they want approval. However if you shoot something that is contrasty and colourful and you like it then that is fine. :)
-
In the end, you have several "interpretations" of reality, and you choose the one you prefer, or the one your clients prefer.
Who said a photo has to be believable anyway?
-
I like the city better here but I'd bring the sky back to what you saw. I agree that there really ARE sky's that look like that to the naked eye. I often see 90 second windows of time where the sky can look like that here in North Florida. It's short but it's mesmerizing.
-
In the end, you have several "interpretations" of reality, and you choose the one you prefer, or the one your clients prefer.
Who said a photo has to be believable anyway?
Well said, Paulo. I prefer this one, but it ultimately comes down to your decision.