Stone III

[Timo Löfgren]

.......

[francois]

I love this one almost as much as Stone II. The texture of the f/g rocks and the cloudy sky are really pleasant.

[Ed Blagden]

It's OK but personally I preferred Stone II, which was very special.  For my taste, there is a but too much going on in the foreground in this one and I wish I could see a bit more of that hill (or is it an island?) at top right.

[francois]

It's OK but personally I preferred Stone II, which was very special.  For my taste, there is a but too much going on in the foreground in this one and I wish I could see a bit more of that hill (or is it an island?) at top right.

Stone II was very minimalist and I that's why I love it. Stone III is more busy, a more classical representation.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like it, but I also prefer Stone II.

[John R]

Stone II was very minimalist and I that's why I love it. Stone III is more busy, a more classical representation.

I don't know if I would use 'busy' to describe this image. It is well composed and strikes me, metaphorically speaking, as the earth giving birth to new life where the earth meets the water. Love it.

JMR

[francois]

I don't know if I would use 'busy' to describe this image. It is well composed and strikes me, metaphorically speaking, as the earth giving birth to new life where the earth meets the water. Love it.

JMR

Stone 2 was minimalist compared to Stone 3. I'm sorry if my comment was unclear.

[JeffKohn]

I also preferred Stone II. There's just a little too much foreground in this one for me. Also the light on the boulder doesn't seem quite as nice as in II.