Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: sdwilsonsct on January 19, 2012, 10:28:50 pm
-
Suggestions are welcome.
Scott
-
I like the color palette, mood and composition of the first. The other two are... well... ordinary.
-
I'm always slightly nervous when I disagree with Slobodan, but I find the first too dark to be interesting. It's the second that works for me: I like the way the swirling lines in the rock mimic the swirling water.
Jeremy
-
Ya I'm afraid I agree with you Jeremy
I think 1 is the weakest of the 3. It's quite underexposed (I'd say over a stop) and lacks punch. The large rock is very dominant but it doesn't have a strong enough form for it work imo
I really like 2 though. Again the rock is the most dominant here but the wonderful curves, tones and patterns compliment the white water. Also the dark rock along the edge at the top make a nice contrast to the other elements. I would say it's a bit underexposed also. Would your monitor possibly not be correctly calibrated Scott? Well done overall
Enda
-
Hey Scott, 3 more nice images.
I like the first and the third. Although it shows as dark on the web, bumping up the brightness on #1 with levels and tweeking the curves could make the make colours pop. I like #3 as it is.
The second one just doesn't work for me, there are two main elements, the swirling rocks and the water, yet neither is strong enough to grab me. Given that we're viewing web jpgs, I find the dark top right a bit too dark, it unbalances the image. Likely there's more detail there if you lighten it. But boy there's lots to work with.
You might want to try vignetting, darkening the corners slightly, to draw the eye more to the centre.
Anyway that's my 2 cents, others are sure offer differing opinions.
-
+1 on the second one, I really liked it, gives me the sense of a small tunel running underneath the water
-
I'll vote with Jeremy, Enda, and Jalcocer. The second one really speaks to me. But, since Slobodan is seldom entirely wrong, I'll have to say that the mysterious mood of the first one puts it in a solid second place for me.
Eric
-
Many thanks for the specific comments and general encouragement. Very helpful.
Slobodan: glad you like #1. I was afraid it would repel everyone.
Jeremy, Enda, Jalcocer, Eric, Kerry; re #2: the usual and reassuringly mixed responses mirror my own enthusiasms and doubts about the image.
I ran a calibration, Enda. We'll see if it helps. #1 is indeed dark, taken well after sunset. Probably looks better when viewed in a darkened room.
Good suggestions, Kerry, I'll see how they work. My preference is to avoid added vignettes.
Scott
-
Not only I disagree, but I strongly disagree (within the parameters that everyone is entitled to his opinion, of course, especially true for matters of taste). On the other hand, having such diverge opinions can only be good for Scott: say he is selling all three images, it is then great that there will be buyers for them all.
#1 is simply outstanding in its treatment of mood, color palette and composition. One of those that I wish I took. I also rarely consider other photographer's image for my wall (I only have one, from Brooks Jensen, of the LensWork fame), and this is the one I would gladly have. Also, I am known to find a fault in almost any posted image, but this is one of those where I would not change a thing.
Why? I am a sucker for gloomy moods, muted colors, dark atmosphere, simplicity in design, solitude, intimate nature details, and this image has it all.
Underexposed? Maybe*. Do I care? No. If it were not underexposed at capture, I would underexpose it in post. One of those images that require a dedicated spot on the wall in a darkened room, with its own spot lighting, to really come to life.
Note also, the repetitive natural pattern, kind of rhomboidal, triangular, or kite-like and almost fractal.
* EDIT: I was about to say: maybe taken well after sunset, but Scott was typing faster
-
I think the amount of underexposure just makes the image look too flat in image 1. The colour of the stone is dark anyway and the fact it is so underexposed loses all the interesting detail in the layers of slate (at least I think it's slate) I think if the printed image only appears to look right under bright directional light than for me it doesn't work. If you stand back any distance all the texture will be lost to the naked eye. I just moved a meter or so back from my monitor and the texture was mostly lost. (my monitor is a correctly calibrated CG243) If the main subject is 80% of the image and you just see a dark mass than that just doesn't work. Don't forget the print will probably show less detail than what the screen shows.
Enda
-
Thanks, Slobodan! Your structural analysis calls to mind churly's recent ice diamonds.
Here it is 0.66 stops up, Enda. I agree that differences between the print and the monitor versions of this image are likely to be important.
Scott
-
with the corrections it now looks outstanding, I have to say now both #1 and #2 got my complete attention
-
Ya one looks a lot better now I think.
Edit-I meant to say 2 is still my favorite though :)
-
Ya one looks a lot better now I think.
Agreed. Big improvement. I still prefer #2, though.
Jeremy
-
I agree with Jalcocer and Enda. The new version of #1 should work fine in any light. Good image!
Eric
P.S. Sorry, Jeremy, but I think #1 is now moving into first place in my judgement. And not just because I'm afraid to disagree with Slobodan. ;)
(Edited to get the number right. :-[ )
-
#1 - "Sturm und drang" "au naturel" - wonderful image
In fact each one has its own merit.
Thanks for sharing!
-
I agree with Jalcocer and Enda. The new version of #1 should work fine in any light. Good image!
Eric
P.S. Sorry, Jeremy, but I think #2 is now moving into first place in my judgement. And not just because I'm afraid to disagree with Slobodan. ;)
Why are you apologising for agreeing with me, Eric?
Jeremy
-
Why are you apologising for agreeing with me, Eric?
Jeremy
It's because as a retired mathematician, I'm no longer very good with numbers. I meant to say, "... #1 is now moving... ."
I've now fixed it in my post. And I do fully intend to agree with you at some future date. ;)
Eric