Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: byork on July 25, 2009, 07:09:51 am
-
C&C appreciated as always.
Cheers
Brian
-
Hi Brian,
I like this picture quite a bit. That said, I have a few comments.
The eye tends to be attracted to the lightest values in a picture. In this case, that is the small patch of sky at the very top and the very light brown around and on the rocks. Thus, the picture as presented is really about the pool and two big rocks in the foreground with the waterfall becoming a less significant background element. If this was you intention, then you succeeded. I would crop out that bit of sky as it only distracts and I don't think you lose anything significant in terms of the tree if you do so. The picture has a very Japanese/Zen vibe to it with the rocks as the primary subject.
You might also consider making two pictures out of this. If you crop right at the base of the lower falls, then it becomes entirely about the falls and, I think, a good picture. Likewise, if you crop just down from the top of the lower falls, it further emphasizes the 'rock garden' aspect and makes for a stronger composition.
As a general comment, most people tend to leave too much stuff in this shots, myself included! What I try to do is look at each picture and determine what it's really about and then ruthlessly prune everything else away. In the case of your shot, it's about two different things, the falls and the rock garden, both are good shots, but they should be presented one at a time.
-
Have you tried it in black and white, maybe with a little more contrast and a slight vignette on the edges? The color in the shot seems to be a non-issue, so I would remove it.
-
Basically I agree with Ed. Those two rocks 'anchor' the bottom of the image, but they're too dominant and the image becomes overbalanced, with the waterfall becoming almost a moot point. Moving closer and eliminating them from the image would make it much better. The sky I'm not as worried about; with the mist the sky and the waterfall become integrated into one focal point.
Mike.
-
Very interesting photograph. At first glance I started at the bright trapezoidal patch of sky at the top, descended through the foggy gap between the trees and rode down the waterfalls to the two boulders in the foreground (which may have very well traveled a similar path to their present location - excluding the falling from the sky part). So for that visual pathway I think the brighter patch of sky at the top works and does not need to be cropped out.
Moving the opposite way (starting at the boulders) and following the converging lines up the centre of the photograph leaves you at this patch of sky, which is not as as interesting a journey.
So as far as cropping goes, at most the top 5% percent of the photograph, maybe. May be worth considering to see how that looks and if the dynamics of the photograph change or not.
Andrew
-
For me the image feels imbalanced. The upper 2/3 of the image is quite dense, with the waterfall and allhte trees and foliage. But then in the bottom part of the have these two rocks surrounded by all this negative space. As others have mentioned the tonal balance makes the foreground the dominant feature of the image, but for me the foreground just can't support the visual weight of the upper 2/3 of the frame. There is a nice sense of depth to the image though.
-
C&C appreciated as always.
Cheers
Brian
I think the rocks in the foreground are too dominant. Cropping off some of the bottom seems to me to improve it a lot. I'm inclined to agree with Ed - there are two images here which don't necessarily work well in the same photograph.
The misty effect of the waterfall is good, though. The small patch of sky doesn't bother me.
Jeremy
-
Unlike everybody else, I like the foreground rocks. But I agree that they are too dominating. I would like to see the same picture taken from a little farther away with a bit longer focal length lens. The change in perspective would reduce the size of the rocks and increase the relative size of the waterfall, creating a better balance, IMHO.
Just to show once gain that there's no one "right answer."
-
Different processing of your image.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/glenngaryglenross/waterfallLL_web1.jpg)
-
Thanks everyone for your terrific feedback...I can see where you are all coming from in what you say, and I agree the two rocks in the foreground are too dominating. I included them for the sense of depth that Jeff mentioned, and I do like this feeling, so I will re shoot with Eric's suggestion of using a longer lens from further back. Will also re shoot the two separate shots of the waterfall and rock pool while I'm there.
Cannon, tried B&W and I think it's reduced most of the dominance of the rocks.....I like it. Thanks.
Cheers
Brian
Edit; better B&W render, grammar brainsnap.
-
The BW version works very well for me. The waterfall now dominates (nicely), and the rocks do give depth and seem more like 'spectators' to the waterfall.
-
tried B&W
WOW. Much better!
-
Indeed!
Mike.
-
The BW version works very well for me. The waterfall now dominates (nicely), and the rocks do give depth and seem more like 'spectators' to the waterfall.
I agree. It looks much better like this.
Jeremy
-
It's like the a whole new picture. The 'imbalance' I saw in the color version is gone, and the falls are now clearly the dominant subject but the rocks still add interest to the foreground and depth the the scene. A perfect example of how sometimes color is just a distraction from the more important qualities of an image.
Print that one big, it's a keeper!
-
A very nice scene, I looked long at this. Not easy to say what exactly is disturbing me, but now I got it. This appears imbalanced simply because the upper part is much darker.
The composition works as a whole, although I dont like the symmetry so much, wich shows especially in the bottom rock. I probably would have tried to get this rock to the right and get a bit nearer to it. Not sure if this would have worked.
While the b/w is well done, I dont really like it. For me this has to be in color. I optimized a version for better contrast, gave it a saturation boost and equalized the brightness levels of the upper and the lower part so they appear identical in visual terms. While not perfect, this now works for me.
I think this image would benefit very much from a more elaborate post work.
Christian
-
Brian,
I've been holding off on commenting because I've been having a hard time making up my mind about this one. My first impression was that even though the rocks in the original are certainly dominant and the result is almost two separate pictures, somehow the whole thing works. I just put the original and your very good revision side by side on my screen, and I'm still not sure I don't like the original best.
Suggestion: Make prints of both versions and put them away for a month. Then, look at them again, side by side and see what you think. Frankly, I like them both. The other replies are correct, the rocks are, maybe, too dominant, but then...
-
My first thought when I saw the original was "wow- that's a winner!" I 'll have to say though, that I prefer New Haven's treatment- a bit brighter and more vibrant.
I see the rocks as the focal point. Given your vertical composition and the way you placed the dominant features in the center 1/3 of the frame, I get the sense that the rocks rolled down that waterfall in the distance and are coming at me like a downhill skier. That the largest is pointed almost right at the viewer completes that effect.
Although the black and white really does work as a different picture, I like it as well. For me, it's more mysterious, and anchors the rocks more soundly. I say print 'em both! Well done.
John
-
My first thought when I saw the original was "wow- that's a winner!" I 'll have to say though, that I prefer New Haven's treatment- a bit brighter and more vibrant.
Isn't taste a curious thing? I though New Haven's version exacerbated all the faults of the original, making the already dominant foreground rocks suck all the life out of the rest of the image. De gustibus...
Jeremy
-
Well it certainly seems opinions are divided and both colour and B&W could work.....for me, like Russ I'm not convinced colour doesn't work, but B&W gives the result I was looking for. New Haven's version is a little over the top for my tastes...the brightness and saturation gives the foreground even more weight. I have done another edit slightly brighter than my original with some vignetting like the B&W, and this seems to be a fair compromise.
Thanks again everyone for your useful and informed thoughts.
Cheers
Brian
-
the brightness and saturation gives the foreground even more weight.
That's what I like about it
-
That's what I like about it
Righto Johno, since I respect your judgment, I went back in and did some more adjustments.....and between the B&W and this version, I reckon I've got the market covered. What do you think? Did some split toning to keep the water and mist cool, giving me two versions I'm happy with for their differing points of dominance. Actually, I'm not sure the rocks overpower the waterfall so much in this version. Nevertheless, I like both this and the B&W.
Cheers
Brian
-
Brian,
yes the fg is a bit too saturated here. You dont have to like any suggestion. If you just love the b/w more, I think thats fine with everybody. At the end, you decide.
Cheers,
Christian
-
Righto Johno, since I respect your judgment, I went back in and did some more adjustments.....and between the B&W and this version, I reckon I've got the market covered. What do you think? Did some split toning to keep the water and mist cool, giving me two versions I'm happy with for their differing points of dominance. Actually, I'm not sure the rocks overpower the waterfall so much in this version. Nevertheless, I like both this and the B&W.
Cheers
Brian
I like it quite a bit- great treatment. Actually, this is pretty much what I had envisioned for this shot. The contrast between the cool, soft features in the background and the bold, vibrant warm foreground elements create a happy, back and forth journey for my eye. Now, you just have to figure out where to hang all of the prints!
John