Critique Request

[iancl]

I have been lurking (and occasionally commenting) for quite a while on this site. I have come to appreciate the honesty (sometimes brutal) given in the responses to critique requests. I hoping I could get some feedback on a couple of images I have taken over the summer.

Both of these images were taken at the Cheltenham Badlands near Toronto, Ontario (in Caledon -- 45 minutes NW of the downtown core). I would particularly like the know if they have an emotional impact. Are they grabbing? Do they convey a particular mood or emotion? Are they (or do you imagine they will be) interesting beyond a moment or two?

Secondarily, can you see them as salable prints (assuming a quality print)? This is something I would like to get into in the coming year or two.

Any and all other comments are also sought including any technical considerations. If this goes well, I have a few other images that I'd like to receive honest responses about. I currently post at Photo.net and find that you are either given little more than mindless praise or else silence.

Thanks in advance,

Ian Cox-Leigh

1. Undulation



2. Fallen

[DarkPenguin]

I quite like the first one.  Great B+W conversion.  (Or B+W shot if it was digital.) There is a glowing halo around the tree.  (Shadow highlight side effect?)  I'd try to get rid of that.  I probably ditch the plants on the right side.  Add to the stark feel of the landscape.  I like the one living thing (if I ignore the plants on the right) in a what looks like a moon scape.  Very nice.

There are a lot of things I like about the second one.  But the footprints in the foreground bother me.  And that particular hunk of dead wood is undeserving of a closeup.  Just not a very interesting piece of lumber.  I think I'd like it better cropped to the first rock and the piece of wood removed.

Very interesting location.

[David Anderson]

I agree with all the above.

The top shot is cool, it has a great feel and more than enough impact.

Well done.

[mahleu]

The first image is strong but the tree halo needs to be sorted, shouldn't take long. I really like it although the plants on the right are a touch distracting.

The second is not focussed enough. The tree leads me in but then as I reach the large tree i'm immediately distracted by the smaller tree. I also don't think the dead tree is impressive enough for its prominence, a bigger dead tree or getting down lower and closer may fix this.

[iancl]

Thanks all. Useful critiques all around and they give plenty of food for thought.

Some responses:

1. I really will consider cloning out the plants on the RHS of the first image. I liked having them there to provide a destination for the viewer's eye as it moved left to right along the ridges; but, trying the image without them is certainly worth the effort.
The halo is the after effect of some dodging. It is invisible when viewing full size, but, I should deal with it for web posting.

2. I was lying flat on my stomach and as close as my tripod legs would allow. Lower and closer wasn't really an option. If I go back I would remove my centre column and I could get another couple inches down.

3. I really dislike the idea of cropping through the log! If you don't like the log as subject, you don't like the image. I doubt cropping will save/improve the overall composition at all.

4. Would you guys prefer the second image without the tree on the left?

Thanks again! Oh, and the first image was shot in colour and converted in Lightroom.

One last thing, may I ask why "the footprints in the foreground bother me"? Curiosity here only. I cold easily have wiped them out. I liked the detail they gave and sense of a human presence now gone.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like both images, but I would like to see them both without the small tree (right in the first, left in the second) as those seem to me distracting and irrelevant.

I also don't think the footprints add anything in the second. The "sense of a human presence" seems to me to go in a direction that nothing else in the image points to. Thus it seems irrelevant.

Don't crop the log!

That's my 2 cents. Both images are worth spending time with. I'd like to see the second converted to B&W also.

[iancl]

Eric, your wish is my command    . Well, actually I already had done it as a B&W.

[Rob C]

Ian

My couple of cents worth: in the horizontal shot, just take out the furthest right vegitation but leave the other bit of it there - you need to keep a balance over the whole and taking out all the right side veg would make it awkward. Don´t change the edge framing - leave it as it is.

The second shot is nice too, in back/white, and if anything, I´d just move the right side in a bit to balance up the weight of everything.

I agree about footprints: any evidence of man tends not to be a good one in such matters. There is another body of opinion that holds that had the prints been female - but that´s another story best told by Minor or one of dem guys!

Nice ideas.

Rob C

[Kagetsu]

I quite like the second one, though I think it could do with a little more saturation. There's certainly strength in the earthy contrast to the sky... The lock (especially as the stump end) the colour seems a little to washed out, as well as over the general image.

The foot prints aren't too bad, but will come out with a little more saturation. I don't personally feel it works in black and white though.
The first image is fine.

I also like the first image, however, as has been said, I'm distracted by the bush on the right.