Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Harald L on October 01, 2013, 11:16:36 am
-
Sella / Dolomites
-
Wonderful image!
-
I have to visit this place! Very nice, Harald. Just a tad more contrast in the background?
-
I have to visit this place! Very nice, Harald. Just a tad more contrast in the background?
Yes, indeed nobody should pass without visiting the dolomites.
The foreground is a beast because it tends to be too busy. But I'll try my very best. Here's another interpretation of that picture which is a little bit away from this forum's main stream but I like it anyway: Sella (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harlemhh/10017657054/lightbox/)
Harald
-
...Just a tad more contrast in the background?
Here you are...
-
Very nice but kind of busy with lots of structure in the foreground, mountains and sky. Would colour help?
-
Very nice but kind of busy with lots of structure in the foreground, mountains and sky. Would colour help?
:-) Thank you, please have a look at reply #3.
Harald
-
The linked color image has a kind of painterly quality to it, which I agree would upset some LuLa viewers, but it is still quite nice.
My preference is for the second of the B&W versions. I don't mind a somewhat busy foreground; after all, Nature often is busy.
-
Understand the business, but after seeing #2, I think I prefer #1. There's a certain "other worldliness" of the peaks that separates them from the foreground. Thanks for accommodating my wonderings!
-
…My preference is for the second of the B&W versions. I don't mind a somewhat busy foreground; after all, Nature often is busy.
I like the last version best, it has lots of textures and excellent contrast. I'm not so hot on the linked color version but it might just be a [lack of?] post-processing.
Anyway, the B&W is superb.
-
I find myself increasingly at odds with esteemed members of the community as of lately, with your, gentlemen, newfound love for overcooked imagery. Not sure if it makes me mainstream or fringe, though.
The image is too busy, placing accents all over the (wrong) place. Everything seems accentuated, thus nothing is. Actuallly, the main element, the magnificent mountain range, seems to be emphasized the least.
My recipe:
Foreground: Less, not more, contrast, clarity and exposure
Background, sky: less clarity
Background, mountain: more clarity and contrast
-
Great image -- but not sure about the "look" of the foreground ---maybe some kind of processing happening ??
-
Thank you guys for the discussion. Isn't it funny that different ponds need different bait? With the first picture I've got a lot of wows from non-photographers. It seems to be obvious that that kind of over-processing attracts much more people in our world of visual-overkill. I don't want to start the Raberizing-Thread again but have a look at the colorful world of Flickr and 500 px...
Anyway - here's the forum which upholds the immortal values of St. Ansel. And back to the bait: a worm has to delight the fish but not the angler;-)
Harald
PS: The picture is only about to worship the overwhelming beauty of the Dolomites.
-
I shouldn't say anything after my daily drink, and if I was a fish and I ate worms I would feel less insulted. If I wanted to photograph the mountains, I would get closer.
-
The last version is better, I can distinguish easier what is happening in the foreground as the trees are not the same tone as the rocks
-
Harald,
You have it right in the first image. Leave it alone and enjoy!
Rich
-
+1
Harald,
You have it right in the first image. Leave it alone and enjoy!
Rich
-
This is indeed a very tough image with so much going on in that foreground. That is why I actually prefer your linked color version in which the colors themselves tend to separate the clutter, and reminds me of an old time tourist postcard effect. ;-)
David
-
Let me simply suggest that if the attraction is the over-processing, then the attraction is not the overwhelming beauty of the Dolomites.
C'mon Isaac, don't get me wrong deliberately. Nobody gets attracted by the make-up but nobody would notice the beauty of Scarlett O'Hara on a stage full of drag-queens. Sadly the internet is the latter.
Harald
-
One of things I find remarkable about this image is at base level it has a very visceral power and shifting rhythm all throughout the image...fg, bg, sky...a striking qualities that to me capture and help tell the tale of the Dolomites and the landscape surrounding. It may be one of those images that over time gets tweaked...one time, ten times, one hundred times...I don't know...certainly wouldn't be the first time. But whether it changes or not in varying degrees of contrast, sharpness, etc..at the end of the day... the essentials of a great image are here.
-
One of things I find remarkable about this image is at base level it has a very visceral power and shifting rhythm all throughout the image...fg, bg, sky...a striking qualities that to me capture and help tell the tale of the Dolomites and the landscape surrounding. It may be one of those images that over time gets tweaked...one time, ten times, one hundred times...I don't know...certainly wouldn't be the first time. But whether it changes or not in varying degrees of contrast, sharpness, etc..at the end of the day... the essentials of a great image are here.
Like a disease with no cure, it may have many remedies. I was wrong about you not being close enough, though.
Bruce
-
... It seems to be obvious that that kind of over-processing attracts much more people in our world of visual-overkill...
The same people who's only (accidental) encounter with the word "art" is when they stumble upon it while fiddling with their phone's "art filters"? For whom Instagram = insta-art?
... a worm has to delight the fish but not the angler;-)
And yet you are showing it to anglers ;)
-
"a worm has to delight the fish but not the angler;-)"
I think rather it should delight both and, having eaten it, I think it's not haft bad.
-
And yet you are showing it to anglers ;)
You're so right, sometimes I forget that. ::)
Oh, wait ... I just imagine a pond without any fishes where lots of anglers are sitting around and everyone hopes that someone jumps in and tug at the floats. ;D
Harald
-
Are you saying that only sales or the number of clicks matter? Should critiques be written by those who are ignorant and indifferent? Do you look at your pictures for any reason other than to guess their popularity?
-
Maybe if I enjoyed fishing more this would worry me less.
Also, to me, the subject is the bait, the camera is the pole, and the photograph is the fish.
-
... Also, to me, the subject is the bait, the camera is the pole, and the photograph is the fish.
Say what!? I am now getting positively seasick ;D
-
Also, to me, the subject is the bait, the camera is the pole, and the photograph is the fish.
??? OK, I promise to don't talk in analogies anymore.
Harald
-
Say what!? I am now getting positively seasick ;D
Yeah, that's one of the problems with fishing.
I understand Harlem to be saying with his imaginings that photographs are a means to an end [as bait is for most people]. I prefer to think that, assuming there is anyone to look at them, photographs are an end in them selves [more like fish].
-
Mountain angler ;D
-
Thank you guys for the discussion. Isn't it funny that different ponds need different bait? With the first picture I've got a lot of wows from non-photographers. It seems to be obvious that that kind of over-processing attracts much more people in our world of visual-overkill. I don't want to start the Raberizing-Thread again but have a look at the colorful world of Flickr and 500 px...
Anyway - here's the forum which upholds the immortal values of St. Ansel. And back to the bait: a worm has to delight the fish but not the angler;-)
Harald
PS: The picture is only about to worship the overwhelming beauty of the Dolomites.
Could some effect I never use ==just looks out of focus in the foreground ..almost like camera shake ???
-
Could some effect I never use ==just looks out of focus in the foreground ..almost like camera shake ???
So you mean a combination of out of focus and motion blur? Interesting, thank you for that helpful hint. I'll try my very best to develop that method to perfection.
Harald
-
Harald,
You have it right in the first image. Leave it alone and enjoy!
Rich
I agree!
Mike.