Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on April 16, 2016, 01:51:01 pm

Title: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 16, 2016, 01:51:01 pm: Comments?

Jeremy
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on April 16, 2016, 02:19:09 pm: Lovely. What a sight!
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: luxborealis on April 16, 2016, 04:20:17 pm: Love the light- dark and yellow-blue contrasts and the tactile, snowy slopes.
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 16, 2016, 04:26:27 pm: Again, a bit more detail in the foreground wouldn't hurt ;)
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: RSL on April 16, 2016, 04:42:12 pm: It's gorgeous, Jeremy, but I have to agree with Slobodan. I also think it's unfortunate that the foothills had to start in the center of the frame, but I don't see how it could have been avoided. Lower the frame and you get too much foreground; raise it and you end up with a bunch of blue sky. But these are nitpicks.
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 16, 2016, 08:52:35 pm: It's all been said now. It is beautiful, and you have the best composition that nature allows, but pulling a bit more detail in the foreground will definitely help.

Eric
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: BobDavid on April 16, 2016, 08:55:46 pm: The foreground is too dark. Otherwise, it's a handsome image.
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 17, 2016, 06:54:55 am: Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 16, 2016, 04:26:27 pm
Again, a bit more detail in the foreground wouldn't hurt ;)

Your whim is my command!

Jeremy
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on April 17, 2016, 11:46:45 am: I thought the original image was just right. That lava field can look dark in some conditions.
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 17, 2016, 01:25:24 pm: Here's my whim: The original was too dark but the new version is too light in the foreground. I would go for one that is closer to the original, but a tiny bit lighter in the foreground.

Eric
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 17, 2016, 02:17:32 pm: Rajan, Eric: I think you're both right. I was too heavy-handed. The fact that it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

Jeremy
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 17, 2016, 03:10:28 pm: Here is the thing: the foreground of this type should not be uniformly dark or light, it should gradually move from dark to light(er), i.e., the closest foreground the darkest. That way you are leading the viewer toward the main point of interest.

You also might want to consider what to do with the figure there, which wasn't visible in the OP. To clone it out or, if to leave, to lighten it enough to differentiate from the rest?
Title: Re: snæfellsjökull
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 18, 2016, 03:14:07 pm: Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 17, 2016, 03:10:28 pm
Here is the thing: the foreground of this type should not be uniformly dark or light, it should gradually move from dark to light(er), i.e., the closest foreground the darkest. That way you are leading the viewer toward the main point of interest.

You also might want to consider what to do with the figure there, which wasn't visible in the OP. To clone it out or, if to leave, to lighten it enough to differentiate from the rest?

Graduating the foreground would be a fairly easy exercise. I'll give it a go. I'll clone out the photographer, now he's visible.

Jeremy