C & C invited.

Love it!!!

Thanks, Kaden. How'd do the droplet layer?

I used one of the filters on PS4.

Loving it.

Original: Not for me, but it seems its purely a matter of taste. To my eye the composition doesnt hold much interest and the PS work on the colors doesnt appeal.
Kaden's re-work appeals a bit more: the color palette seems more approrpriate. The droplet concept is interesting, but would have to be more refined. I'd prefer the re-work with a more traditional 2:3 aspect ratio, cutting some from the top.

Scott

Trust me Scott, it was offered as an unconventional image. (Kaden asked us to surprise him.) Unconventional images often strongly appeal to me. (Perhaps I'm bored with the ordinary.) I also disagree with the "compose it to full frame" school. Images need the crop that works for the image, in my book. I find Procrustean cropping assumptions an arbitrary constraint on my images. As it happens I rarely compose to 2:3 unless, by chance, that's the ratio that works best for the image.

There's nothing special or better about a 2:3 ratio. Consider the cameras Ansel Adams used and his most common print formats. Setting aside drugstore snapshot prints, for much of the 20th century, at least in America, the "standard" image ratio was 4:5 for serious work. The formats for most common view and press cameras and the ubiquitous 8x10 glossy print were 4:5. Historically, 35 mm work was typically cropped for serious prints and most publication. When I last viewed museum photographs, I'd say it was rare to find prints with 2:3 ratios.

Actually I love square crops, 4:5. Just not on this one. But we are arguing over taste.
And I love to see the experiments you, Kaden, others embark on. I need to do more.

It is especially hard to offer a "critique" to an experimental offering. What are the options? Sharing the response it creates? The meanings it seems to offer? The positive, negative or neutral emotional valences elicited? A personal choice on how it could work better for the viewer?

I know nothing about formal art critique. Something that perhaps others can educate me and others about more.

Since we have been frequenting the board together for some time, and I value your honest critique, I took the liberty of a personal thumbs down on this one. Please do the same for me, with, when possible, explanation or suggestions.


Scott

Oh, I wasn't offended. It's unconventional. I didn't expect many to like it. I'd have been surprised if you did. (I gave Kaden maybe a 50/50 chance.) I've found I frequently like images others do not. Nevertheless, it's useful to know why and what they'd prefer. That's why I offered it for critique. (Please don't mistake explanation for disputation.) This image started with a fairly minimalist scene. In some ways I like the original, but I suspect most won't find it appealing. I decided to see what I could do with the original, mining color hiding in the original and changing the eye flow to better serve the sun's reflection.

For me there are no preferred aspect ratios. As you've probably noticed, the image is essentially 9:10, midway between 4:5 and square. Why the unconventional ratio? Because it's what seemed best to me. I could make it square, but you still wouldn't like it.

For the curious, here's the original before reconstructive cropping and manipulation:

Galactic?

That was quick!. How about the River Sticks Nebula?

Yes, but...
The River Styx Nebula!

(better sans sticks)

Scott

Thought you catch the Styx play on words.

just checking
sometimes I can be unsure of the obvious