Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Water at Dusk  (Read 4196 times)
churly
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570


« on: December 10, 2011, 06:14:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I am intrigued by the palette that opens up just before dark and the simplicity of the long exposures.
Thanks for having a look.







Logged

Chuck Hurich
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1221



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2011, 07:21:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Gorgeous photographs - wonderful vision and technique at a truly magical time. Great diagonals, lovely texture. All three images are very tactile.

If I had to choose between 1 and 2, I would choose #1. While I prefer the colour palette of #2, I'm drawn to the subtle, but stronger composition of #1. In #2 there is small group of defined stones that are too centred for me. My eye is drawn to them because they are so defined, but it's drawn to the centre which, compositionally leaves me in the middle rather than being drawn through the scene. Whereas in #1, that same group of stones, being left of centre, invites my eye to then explore left to right through the scene. To my eyes, being off-centre creates more movement; it's more dynamic. Subtle, but apparent if only a subliminal level.

Image 3 is equally beautiful. A slight crop of the left and slightly more to the right side would make the photograph more square and may strengthen the dynamic between the three large rocks. As it is, I find my eye wandering into the right becoming slightly "lost".
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1719


« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2011, 11:17:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice!!! Rich with lots of dimensionality. I especially like the top right corner of #1. It finishes off the diagonal while inviting our imagination to ramble a little further off-frame.
Scott
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8290



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2011, 01:28:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Lovely, all three of them!

IMHO, Terry's comments and suggestions are right on the money.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2011, 12:27:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Nicely done!  I too agree with Terry.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
fineartphotos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2011, 06:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The first is great.
You should decide what you like, showing two very similar photos are not making it a stronger impact, I understand that you are looking for an advise here but the first two photos are equally great.
Third image is over sharpened in photoshop.
Logged

churly
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570


« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2011, 07:51:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks everyone for the comments.  Particularly to Terry for providing a careful, thoughtful and instructive critique.

I would like to pose a question to Terry or anyone that has some thoughts on this - I often find that my reaction to the elements of an image depends on the scale (size vs viewing distance) at which it is viewed.  That is, a full screen view has a different impact than a small view (as seen in most web galleries) and the elements interact differently.  That is a reflection of the way we parse things spatially.  It is kind of like looking at a print in a gallery compared to a 5x7.  I suspect that those folks that have a lot of gallery experience can do the translation but probably not most of us.  Do you view this as an issue or is your response to an image independent of the scale of the presentation?

I would appreciate any thoughts that anyone might have.

Chuck
Logged

Chuck Hurich
RichDesmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2011, 09:46:14 AM »
ReplyReply

While I'm generally not a fan of long exposure water images, these I love. Especially #3, it evokes a mystery and emotional depth that's quite compelling.
I wouldn't crop the right edge at all, that little rock barely above the water in the upper right is important to the overall feeling of the image.
On the size/scale/distance effect, for me it's a problem. I have a number of things where I love the 16x20 print, but on a monitor they are very blah. Vertical compositions seem to have the biggest issue.  I've gotten reasonably good at "seeing through" it and knowing what will print well, but size and presentation definitely have an effect on my reaction to an image.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 10:01:44 AM by RichDesmond » Logged
churly
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570


« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2011, 03:37:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the comment Rich - particularly your thoughts on the affect of presentation size.  Maybe the topic has been discussed elsewhere but I haven't seen it and I find it hard to believe that scale doesn't play a significant role on how we see and feel about the interaction of various elements in an image.
Logged

Chuck Hurich
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1221



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2011, 06:32:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Chuck, you make a good point about spatial relationships and size of presentation. My comments tend to directed to the actual size I see, rather than mentally upscaling the photograph to a large format print. I'm not actively thinking of the image as much larger; I'm not convince fit makes a big difference, at least to my thinking. However  it may be the basis of what Rich points out regarding the importance of the rock in the upper right - in the context of a larger print it might just work, or it might just mean that there is an even larger area of "empty" space beneath the rock.

Or - dare I suggest - digitally "move" the rock to a point further left so it becomes part of the rock system rather than being an "asteroid on a different arc". I know what I suggest is digital anathema to many. It's not something I would do without careful thought, but I know painters do it all the time. Nature is perfect, after all (except when it comes to satisfying the minds of human control/design freaks!) Wink
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
geotzo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2011, 12:38:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I really like the third one. Something magical about the colors and the lighting.
Very dream like.
Logged
JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2011, 05:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the third one is really special. Excellent work.
Logged

Jon Meddings
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2011, 06:25:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Churly, I'm with the #3 crowd!  I love this technique and I particularly like this shot. The colors and the sense of depth with the rocks in the distance make it for me over the others. The simplicity, sense of motion and the colors work for me. They remind me of shots I've seen before of ice on a dark beach at night with the water moving over it.  These are just lovely.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad