Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on September 22, 2016, 02:27:37 pm

Title: arch
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on September 22, 2016, 02:27:37 pm
A slightly unusual angle, perhaps. Comments?

Jeremy
Title: Re: arch
Post by: RSL on September 22, 2016, 03:35:26 pm
I think the composition is fascinating, Jeremy. My only beef is with the maybe too bright red arch that overwhelms the rest of the picture. Here's an alternative. I'm not sure I like it as well, but it does eliminate the distraction of the color of the arch, so it's more balanced.
Title: Re: arch
Post by: N80 on September 22, 2016, 04:21:20 pm
I agree with Russ. The red just overwhelms. And even though I'm a monochrome guy I think the color one is better and that lowering the saturation of the red would be more to my taste. Otherwise I like everything else about it.
Title: Re: arch
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on September 24, 2016, 04:11:36 am
Thanks, both. I don't find the monochrome convincing, but I take the point about over saturation. I must have seen to much of Peter Lik's stuff.

Jeremy
Title: Re: arch
Post by: RSL on September 24, 2016, 09:59:42 am
I fooled with it for a while, Jeremy, and found that by selecting the oversaturated bridge I could bring things more into balance, but to do the job right would take more time than I want to spend on it. You can't just reduce red saturation on the whole scene because you lose some of the most attractive things about the picture. Selective desaturation is doable, but to do it really right would be time-consuming. If it were mine I might be willing to take the time. It's a fine shot.
Title: Re: arch
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on September 24, 2016, 01:32:38 pm
Quote from: RSL on September 24, 2016, 09:59:42 am
I fooled with it for a while, Jeremy, and found that by selecting the oversaturated bridge I could bring things more into balance, but to do the job right would take more time than I want to spend on it. You can't just reduce red saturation on the whole scene because you lose some of the most attractive things about the picture. Selective desaturation is doable, but to do it really right would be time-consuming. If it were mine I might be willing to take the time. It's a fine shot.

Did you have something like this in mind, Russ? I do see your point.

Jeremy
Title: Re: arch
Post by: RSL on September 24, 2016, 03:00:30 pm
Exactly. Now I can enjoy the fascinating background colors without being knocked on my kiester by the arch.
Title: Re: arch
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 24, 2016, 05:15:09 pm
Yes. Now it's believable.
Title: Re: arch
Post by: fdisilvestro on September 24, 2016, 05:27:28 pm
IMO, the second option is the best.

In the original version my sight is attracted to the arch and the background is secondary, while in the second option the focus is in the "fascinating background" (as Russ mentions) with the arch as a fascinating frame. Great image!
Title: Re: arch
Post by: seamus finn on September 24, 2016, 06:09:16 pm
Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 24, 2016, 05:15:09 pm
Yes. Now it's believable.

Agree. Great shot.