I posted this in the Nature forum last month and got some interesting comments. Then I submitted it to our local photography group as part of an anonymous peer critique. The results were very different, so I'm curious to see what you folks think.
I'll not cheat and research the Nature Forum Not being familiar with the subject matter, it would take me awhile to realize what I am viewing seeing without the caption.
I find the image perplexing in that until I noticed the swann's reflections in the water, I had, and still have, difficulty fighting an optical illusion of the nest's being suspended in the sky. Perhaps this results from the large 'empty' (negative?) space at the bottom. And somehow, the cloud reflections do not look natural - almost as if they were cloned in - which I'm sure was not the case.
I'm probably way off the mark on the comments, purely my opinions. From a technical point I think you've done a fine job with what was probably a difficult setting of subject and lighting but overall the image does not work for me and I do not know why.
Will you share the nature of the comments?
Bob
<Edit> I've now cheated but won't alter my original comments
Bob,
I cheated first.
Now the comments.
Hard to tell what it is. The swan is not readily identifiable; it helps to know what the white and orange thing is.
The reflections and the sky mirrored in the water dont bother me. Makes for a dreamy view and quite interesting. Shadows appear blocked up on the left and the whites look very bright.
Overall, interesting, but doesnt work because the subject is too hard to identify.
Please do share the other comments, after getting as much input here as you can.
I will, but the broad brush is that many get the intended illusion of floating instantly, and the photo appeals to them. Others who don't get it at once don't like it at all. Then there's a small middle ground where there was some initial confusion before the possibility of my intention became clear; these folks usually are sort of positive, but could take it or leave it.
The title was chosen to give the viewer a head start, that's why I repeated it in the text. Any ideas on how to make the illusion more obvious (if you think that's worthwhile at all ) are welcome.
I think the floating in the sky illusion is the strongest aspect of the image. I suppose you could clone out the branches below the nest and the small branch far left protruding by iteself.
Title does help. As I have sometimes suggested, this image might be best as part of an inter-related series, where the context and ability to identify the swans is implied more directly.
Not being familiar with the subject matter, it would take me awhile to realize what I am viewing seeing without the caption.