Looking for feedback on this image. Does it work for you? Does the black mass (a shrubbery?) on the bottom right distracts? Is it a problem that he's not the 'usual' horse rider (check his clothing, sandals and hat)?
Thanks for looking.
EDIT: forgot some basic EXIF info - 420mm f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/1600 sec.
I'm sorry about the Monty Python reference, but I don't really know the word in english for that - should it be simply 'shrub'? Or perhaps something completely different?
I like the color, the splash and the effect of the trees or whatever they are in the distance.
For me though the outline of the silhouette needs to provide a compelling image. "Compelling" may mean recognizable or distinct or unique or perhaps a combination of some of those things. Here, the silhouette is a sort-of confusing conglomerate of the rider and the horse. It's not horrible by any means but I do think this was a terrific setting and a profile here would have been a stronger image.
The shrubbery/tree blob isn't horrible either but I do think it takes away a bit from the otherwise unique and painterly horizon.
Thank you for the feedback, Oregon Gal and Eyeball.
Tried to dodge the tree blob a little, do you think it's enough?
Eyeball, I do agree that a profile here would have made a stronger image, this is something I'll keep in mind for my next silhouettes (to make the shape as simple, as clean and as easily recognizable as possible).
I'm sorry about the Monty Python reference, but I don't really know the word in english for that - should it be simply 'shrub'? Or perhaps something completely different?
I love that movie, no problem on the term, just not a common way to put it here in the USA, maybe its common usage in England but it was an English film and presented as a sort of joke. I could not resist the reference.
Not to put down your image. I really don't have much I can say on this image but I hate to see an honest effort get few replies. This is sort of "I looked" message.
ben egbert wrote:
I love that movie, no problem on the term, just not a common way to put it here in the USA, maybe its common usage in England but it was an English film and presented as a sort of joke. I could not resist the reference.
I love that movie too. Was one of the first movies I started watching with absolutely no subtitles for improving/learning english, really good movie but was not a good choice for learning purposes - I think I only understood most of the dialogues by the 3rd time I watched it, definitely not the easiest english around. But it got worse, my next learning movie was Snatch... well my english got better
Not to put down your image. I really don't have much I can say on this image but I hate to see an honest effort get few replies. This is sort of "I looked" message.
Yes, I could tell this from your first message, thanks
I love it, especially after dodging the shrubbery. I LOVE your use of "shrubbery", and since I saw the Monty Python movie many many years ago, I too use the word "shrubbery" along with telling my grandchildren that their "injuries" are just "flesh wounds!".
crabcakes wrote:
I love it, especially after dodging the shrubbery. I LOVE your use of "shrubbery", and since I saw the Monty Python movie many many years ago, I too use the word "shrubbery" along with telling my grandchildren that their "injuries" are just "flesh wounds!".
Thank you for your feedback, crabcakes .
Telling your grandchildren their injuries are just flesh wounds is epic!
