Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Grassi Lake  (Read 1456 times)
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670


« on: May 16, 2012, 11:45:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I got off the flatlands and into the Rockies this weekend.
Scott
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2886


« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2012, 10:26:01 AM »
ReplyReply

To me, the turquoise greens in the top right (and other areas) are yucky - so I gave up on the picture, although I kind-of like the brown swirls in the bottom right.

So, in my case, the lack of interest is nothing to do with inverted reflections ;-)
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4055



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2012, 01:29:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't work for me either, I'm afraid.

Jeremy
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670


« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2012, 02:56:03 PM »
ReplyReply

To me, the turquoise greens in the top right (and other areas) are yucky -

Ah! Fine art criticism I can understand! Wink
Though for my part I don't find these rich algal populations much yuckier that those cold, wet clouds that plague so many landscapes.
Thanks for your input, Isaac and Jeremy.
Scott
Logged

stpf8
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2012, 12:22:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I think its a nice variation of the standard fare.  I don't see the bands so much as algae (and even if I did, "yucky" is not a term I would use to describe their appearance) as a couple of odd bands of clouds, somewhat out of position and out of color to truly be clouds, but they nevertheless have that appearance. It's an interesting take that probably only a photographer would see and appreciate.  Nicely done.
Logged

Stephen Penland
www.stephenpenland.com
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4055



« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2012, 05:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

But the colours are all wrong. Offensively (IMO) all wrong.

Making a b&w conversion might save it. It's worth a try, anyway.

Jeremy
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670


« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2012, 10:01:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Stephen. Our thinking is alike on this one. I tried many approaches to this, everything from vertical panoramas to the posted image, but this was the best of the lot in my mind.

Jeremy, I have been criticized before for my mountain water colour. It is true that the input/outputs are adjusted, but the processed image is not so far from the unprocessed, attached.

Scott
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4055



« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2012, 03:06:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, I have been criticized before for my mountain water colour. It is true that the input/outputs are adjusted, but the processed image is not so far from the unprocessed, attached.

Scott, my criticism wasn't of your processing and I'm sorry if it appeared as if it was. I just think the gaudy colours, natural or not, ruin what could be an interesting shot. They drag my eye to the bands across the upper part of the image and it's difficult to force myself to look at the rest of it.

Jeremy
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1670


« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2012, 09:13:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy,
I appreciate all the feedback, absolutely no apologies needed.
I tried a B&W version and a colour version with the green rocks dialled down, but didn't like them as much.
I remain curious about how to deal with unnaturally vivid natural colours. I suppose, like everything else, they need to be used thoughtfully to contribute to a composition and not detract from it. And, of course, tastes differ.
Scott
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad