Apr 17, 2017, 05:58
Apr 17, 2017, 11:45
Love the two I can see, the bridge in the background adds so much to the first image.
Apr 17, 2017, 13:41
Worth the walk, Deer has prospects. Did you edit it much. Ed.
To each his own!
Apr 17, 2017, 22:47
Thanks guys.
Yes, Ed. The deer has been massively cropped and worked on. It's a very poor quality photography, really, and is only included as a record of what I saw whilst out on the walk. The animal was far away on the other side of the river and I could have used a much stronger lens. But weirdly, it's the one photograph from the series that non-photographers pick up on and go "Awwww". Just shows that we probably concentrate on the wrong things when looking at finished work. I much prefer the pylons. It's the only one from the series (of which there were a few more than the three I posted) that I think has any merit. Derek
Apr 18, 2017, 11:39
The general appeal of the deer shot is understandable, Derek, but I disagree with you about the pylons. It is a good composition, although it might be even better with only the pylons, by cropping the ground structures away. The processing, however, has produced a strange effect of dark halos around all the silhouetted structures and, in my view, this detracts from the image. For me, the first image is the clear best of the three - relevant detail in the foreground, wonderful water in the mid-ground (one can almost feel and hear the gentle falls), good background foliage and bridge, and just the right amount of interesting sky. The only change I would try would be to tweak the colour balance of everything except sky to be slightly warmer, but this should be subtle, not overdone.
Cheers. Philip
Apr 19, 2017, 02:35
Cheers Philip.
I agree re. the pylons and the halo and have had a go at re-pp-ing. It's a bit of walk to get to the shot but now I know where it is I might make another attempt of the pylons when the sky is dramatic. I was pleased with the river shot but just wished I could have found an angle where the bridge was presented against the sky rather than the foliage. It would have involved wading into the river and the mud is notorious for not letting people back out once they get in...
Apr 19, 2017, 03:13
Derek, regarding the first image, the features I mentioned in Post #6 combine to give the viewer of the 2-D image the impression of the 3-D depth (i.e. distance) in the real scene, the result being more effective for me in this respect than the other two images - the more I view it the more I like it!
Cheers. Philip
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author
Replies
Views
Last Post
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) |