Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: David Jilek on May 06, 2014, 01:30:28 pm

Title: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 06, 2014, 01:30:28 pm
Aspens in the spring.
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: luxborealis on May 08, 2014, 10:36:00 pm
Love the technique and how you've used it. If the aspens were truly "glowing", I would expect the photo to be more golden in tone. Right now, it appears slightly cold and underexposed. Try raising the exposure and adding some warmth (which may then require reduced highlights/whites).
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: francois on May 09, 2014, 06:53:54 am
This is not what I expected from the title but I like the result although I'm with Terry about the glow.
Well done and it can be even better.
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 09, 2014, 11:32:15 am
Is this more  of what you guys are thinking?
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: luxborealis on May 10, 2014, 12:29:07 pm
Now it's glowing. I like this much better.
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 10, 2014, 03:01:32 pm
Me too. Thanks for the keen eye.
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 10, 2014, 03:49:11 pm
Now it's glowing. I like this much better.
Me too.
I don't know or care which version is more "realistic." The new version is both more believable and more appealing.
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: RSL on May 10, 2014, 05:05:58 pm
"Realistic?"
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 10, 2014, 07:17:52 pm
Maybe we should use the word "pleasing".
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: RSL on May 10, 2014, 07:33:36 pm
How about "blurry," or "hard on the eyes?"
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 10, 2014, 08:06:25 pm
How about "blurry," or "hard on the eyes?"
Ah, Russ! Your f/64 background is showing.   ;)

To translate my previous post, the complete content of it can be summarized as "I like the second one more than I like the first one."
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: petermfiore on May 11, 2014, 09:50:49 am
"Realistic?"

Often, an artist will bring enhancement to an image make it more real....But then again real, doesn't necessarily, make art.

Peter
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: RSL on May 11, 2014, 06:24:40 pm
There's a difference between painting and photography, Peter. I don't really have any beef with this kind of abstraction. I see plenty of this kind of thing in various artforms, but I'd certainly not call it "photography." The term, "photographic" pretty much sums up what makes a "photograph."
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 12, 2014, 09:55:35 am
  I agree and disagree at the same time. If we take the literal definition of "Photographic" This image doesn't fit the bill. Is the image a direct reflection of a moment in time captured in exact detail? Not really.  It is more a reflection of my feelings at the time when I created this image.  It is a real place in front of my eye, in front of my camera. It is a image that I visualized before I even went out that day. My settings to create the image are exact and not hap hazard.
  My feelings toward this place are ever changing, as are the seasons and the light passing through the leaves and branches. As the sun warms my skin the breeze chills my nose. Seasons come and go like a wind pushing and pulling at our lives. A static image reflecting this place doesn't convey the idea of time, movement and emotion the same way this image does.
  I started my creative journey drawing and painting. In college I picked up  photography and it stuck! Not because of the scientific tech side of things but by the ability of the artist to express a feeling or share a energy. I love Dutch painters and impressionism. but are either one of these styles a direct reflection of real life? No. They are a interpretation by the artist as they see life.
   We all see life and art/photography differently. Its so beautiful that each of us bring a unique view to the world and no one is right and no one is wrong we are all just different.  I love that everyone here is open and thoughtful but mostly I find great value in everyone's opinion. It helps me see how you see. Which makes me think.
 
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: RSL on May 13, 2014, 07:39:03 am
David, Most discussions about what's "art" are asinine, but this one isn't. I'm on the road from FL to CO, and I'll be out for a few more days, so I don't have time to do this now, but I'll be back to argue once I'm home.
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: petermfiore on May 13, 2014, 08:00:11 am
There's a difference between painting and photography, Peter. I don't really have any beef with this kind of abstraction. I see plenty of this kind of thing in various artforms, but I'd certainly not call it "photography." The term, "photographic" pretty much sums up what makes a "photograph."

Russ,
They original meaning of photography, I'm sure you are aware, is drawing with light. Nothing about realism. Hence all images are welcome.

Peter
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: Manoli on May 13, 2014, 08:08:26 am
Reminds me of William Neill's 'Impressions of Light'
http://www.williamneill.com/portfolios/impressions-of-light/index.html

Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 13, 2014, 01:17:32 pm
Russ I look forward to the discussion.
David
Title: Re: Aspen Glow
Post by: David Jilek on May 13, 2014, 01:18:25 pm
Very nice find. I can really connect to this type of work. Thank you for sharing.