Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on May 15, 2014, 02:51:11 pm
-
Comments?
Jeremy
-
No comments at all? Not even "why did you waste the electrons"?
Jeremy
-
Does this count as a comment?
-
Nice picture.
To me it looks as if Slobodan upped the clarity somewhat. I think that improves it, but I think maybe he went a tiny bit too far.
-
I like Slobodan's edit except for the main mountain where there is too much clarity IMO.
-
Does this count as a comment?
It certainly does, and with slight reservations I like the effect. Would you mind telling me exactly what you did? I have much to learn!
Jeremy
-
Yes, please give us your recipe, Slobodan, before Amazon patents it! ;)
-
Slobodan's "pop" and added contrast are nicer. Also, his lightening up the shadows helped.
-
Sorry guys for the delay in responding... I was busy registering my patent, as per Eric's kind suggestion. Now that my technique is patented, I can finally revel it ;)
I hope it would be clear what I was doing, based on the attached shots (first four in this post, next four in the next post):
-
Next four shots:
-
I've just realised that I thanked Slobodan privately for showing me how he made his edits, but had forgotten to do it publicly. Thanks!
Jeremy
-
This image certainly has some drama, without or without Slobodan's artistry. However I don't feel it is "one for the wall". It's certainly not a "waste of pixels" as artists can learn something from all their works, be they sketches or prints.
For my taste, the image is too top-heavy. There is not enough foreground to comfortably support the background. I understand why that's the case as the foreground is not very compelling, so adding more of it doesn't necessarily turn it into a winning image.
Landscapes are built on their foregrounds - something to convert the dramatic background from being a two-dimensional backdrop to a three-dimensional experience the viewer can feel part of.
Also, landscapes depend greatly on lighting. While the lighting in this photo isn't bad, it's not ideal, either, being mostly front lit.
In other words, this photo has so much going for it, yet it's not quite "there". If the storm had been an hour later, you might have had more side lighting or if you had moved to the right a km or so, you would have had more side lighting (and, perhaps a foreground that would lend itself to this dramatic background). Most of the elements are in place, but a couple key foundations for landscapes are not quite.
With regards to the initial lack of comments, I don't know if others feel the same way, but I must admit to some reticence in giving negative feedback/critique when a photographer has visited a dramatic (and perhaps once-in-a-lifetime) location and is excited enough about their results to post here, yet the results are not quite "there" and can't really be improved upon with PP (or in this case, slightly improved upon, but with the underlying problems of lighting and foreground still there). Granted this is "User Critiques", but still, I tend not to comment if I think I'm raining on your parade with little chance of the image being corrected in a significant way.
Who knows, though. Perhaps you have a version of the scene that pulls all these elements together, but just haven't recognized it!
-
With regards to the initial lack of comments, I don't know if others feel the same way, but I must admit to some reticence in giving negative feedback/critique when a photographer has visited a dramatic (and perhaps once-in-a-lifetime) location and is excited enough about their results to post here, yet the results are not quite "there" and can't really be improved upon with PP (or in this case, slightly improved upon, but with the underlying problems of lighting and foreground still there). Granted this is "User Critiques", but still, I tend not to comment if I think I'm raining on your parade with little chance of the image being corrected in a significant way.
The comments you make (which I've not quoted) are perfectly fair. As to reticence, I accept that some people may be hurt by adverse comments, but I'm not among them. My motivation in posting here, which I do quite a lot, is to learn from the impressive wealth of experience and ability which you and others have and which is, astonishingly and generously, given for free. As I've said before, if all I want is admiration, I'll show my stuff to my mother.
I can split my own enjoyment of a photograph of a dramatic location, which brings back memories, from an objective assessment of it as a work of "art". Of course, I bask in flattering comments as much as the next man, but that really isn't my purpose. I've learned a huge amount here over the last decade (10 years in a fortnight's time: wow) and I hope to continue.
So, comment away on my shots, particularly in the vein you adopt. I shan't be offended.
Who knows, though. Perhaps you have a version of the scene that pulls all these elements together, but just haven't recognized it!
I'll keep looking!
Jeremy
-
That's a great attitude to adopt, Jeremy. Thanks for confirming. I'm sure you are in the majority here in wanting fair, reasoned and constructive feedback. Fortunately, there are a decidedly few contributors who seem offended or hurt by criticism or worse, come up with some justification for making poor photographic decisions (granted we don't all see things the same way, which is a good thing). I guess they just have to take their lumps and hopefully learn from them.
Thanks for posting.