|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Reply |
Isn't it amazing how much atmosphere helps? |
Oct 19th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Reply |
Hi Robert, sadly, the footprints are there in the foreground dune. I will be removing them in future.
I was curious about the added texture or clarity from your suggestion, so I tried it, and it got just a little too harsh (crunchy) for my eye, but interesting thought. Thank you. :) |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Reply |
Thanks Kenneth, I appreciate the feedback. I suspect that the blue shade on the line in the shadow is a natural color shift for a object in shadow. But yeah, nothing man made aside from the foot prints in the sand in the foreground, which I missed initially but will be removing. |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Reply |
Thanks for the feedback. I have been wanting to go to the dunes for a while, and now will be back in January for another crack at it. Thanks again. |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Comment |
Bruce, I like the image for sure. I think I might be struggling unnecessarily with the lighthouse. I find myself wanting to see more. Silly and likely stupid.
I might suggest playing around with a B&W conversion on this image. There isn't a lot of meaningful color in the image so a B&W version could add to the drama that the image is attempting to convey. Good luck. :) |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Comment |
Interesting how different folks feel about "the cloud". My first inclination was that it was an unnecessary distraction. But others feel that it bring desired tension to the work. The key is your take at the end of the day.
That said, I love good architectural photography. I do have a few observations however. Please keep in mind that this may just be an area to explore. For me, the most interesting part of the image is the left side of the building. The left side has lovely contrast heightened by the B&W conversion. The abstract/minimalist patterns that creates is very pleasing to my eye. The right side of the building, is far more "realistic" and detracts from the left side. I might explore a crop into the left side eliminating the right side of the building and sky entirely. Potentially rotating the image 90 degrees to the right and then lining up the patterns compositionally in the most pleasing way to your eye. This just a bit of a play around to see what there may be to see.
That said, you could leave it as is and have a really fine image, with or without the cloud. :) |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Comment |
To my eye, it's hard not to see this as a modern art painting which, to me, is heightened by the IR choice...especially the trees.
I think my eyes my be playing tricks on me, likely so, but does the image appear to be tilted ever so slightly to the right? Not complaining about it, just observing.
Overall, I really like it. Really unique take. :) |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Comment |
IMHO, flat contrast rarely works as well as more contrast. So, I also favor the "original" image. To my eye, it has a lot more to offer the viewer. If I were being picky about the original image, I'd say that it lacks a traditional focal point. Which, of course, can be great, but I might suggest exploring more of an Impressionist take on the image and soften it without losing contrast so that the eye perhaps sees more pattern and color and doesn't try to pixel peep individual trees. But, again, that is a very picky take. The image is quite nice. |
Oct 18th |
| 96 |
Oct 25 |
Comment |
Pinaki, your responses to the comments raise an excellent point in general about the efficacy of the type of feedback this forum provides. At the end of the day we, as artists, are trying to say something. That something can speak to the artist and literally no one else, and that should be okay. The question I have for you is whether YOU feel you have achieved what you were setting out to achieved, or if you feel that there is either something missing or that the image didn't live up to your intent? If so, what would you like feedback on? Is it composition, style, or something else entirely. Either way, I will try, in my observations to not remake your art to fit my style, or what I'd do in your shoes. I'll also apologize if my suggestions fly in the face of your desired intent. So here are my observations:
The image seems flat to me. While the sky seems to have most luminosity zones accounted for, the fore and mid ground don't.
I find the buildings to either side to be distracting, but also provide a level of contrast in architectural style. To resolve this would likely take some trial and error, or may be fine left alone.
The noise in the sky can show a desired grittiness, or could be corrected to some degree in processing.
There seems to be either a flare or sensor spot in the top middle on the church. Effect or distraction?
Good luck :) |
Oct 18th |
5 comments - 4 replies for Group 96
|
5 comments - 4 replies Total
|
