harshaj1 wrote:
Well done Ted. As others have mentioned great job on PP. The sky looks great. The separate exposure for the moon worked so good that it looks unrealistic. You have to be there to believe it.The composition is not the greatest. This composition (wider) taken earlier in the night with the milky way more vertical might have worked better. IMHO
Harsha
Thanks Harsha! I'm gonna go back and re-do this. Probably not the same trees, this is just what I jumped on that morning, because as you know, it was a rush. You had a much better plan. I agree that this would be better for a vertical shot with the milky way running through the scene vertically. I do favor the view of the milky way in the morning... it's such a more dramatic section of it with those summer constellations! Hope to go back and re-shoot this weekend. The beauty of being close by.
I think as an intended surreal/fantasy image piece it is quite nice. Without the two trees in front, I could see this on a sci-fi magazine cover or book (if oriented differently of course). It would be in context and very pleasing.
I looked over at 500px briefly and their images are more realistic or traditional. I think realistic may be a simplistic term to describe all their images but a good generalization. This explains their flat reception. Just simply the wrong audience.
That being said, what might make the 500px gang like it more from their point of view or expectations? I think the sky has too much magenta and is very saturated. The trees seem to break up the composition of the long milky way expanse instead of enhancing it. The tree colors are not that vivid, perhaps a black silhouette would be preferred. I think if the sky seemed less busy, the moon would be more accepted.
Anyway, I like it your way with minor nibbles as others have mentioned. Should you change it greatly - no, other than maybe placing the trees differently. Would have loved to have been there myself!
dgdg wrote:
I think as an intended surreal/fantasy image piece it is quite nice. Without the two trees in front, I could see this on a sci-fi magazine cover or book (if oriented differently of course). It would be in context and very pleasing.
I looked over at 500px briefly and their images are more realistic or traditional. I think realistic may be a simplistic term to describe all their images but a good generalization. This explains their flat reception. Just simply the wrong audience.
That being said, what might make the 500px gang like it more from their point of view or expectations? I think the sky has too much magenta and is very saturated. The trees seem to break up the composition of the long milky way expanse instead of enhancing it. The tree colors are not that vivid, perhaps a black silhouette would be preferred. I think if the sky seemed less busy, the moon would be more accepted.
Anyway, I like it your way with minor nibbles as others have mentioned. Should you change it greatly - no, other than maybe placing the trees differently. Would have loved to have been there myself!...Show more →
thank you dgdg! I think you are right about 500px. I know it's all just a popularity contest really, but I can't deny that how well a score I get on that site directly affects how successful I think a shot is, haha. However, I've learned much more just from posting and asking for feedback here than I could ever get from 500px.
