gnbuzz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Fred,
First of all, the composition and drama of the light is exquisite.
As I am still relatively new, not to photography, but to landscapes, I've been trying to find my way with processing style. I've been an editor for print and online media, so I know what I like and what works generally, I'm just not settled on how to represent myself and my own work.
That all said ... the dodge-and-burn techniques that Matt employed can produce some stunning results and I plan to learn them. However, there is a cadre of landscape photographers who use this approach all the time and invoke a certain "sameness" to their work, in my opinion. You have an image with very strong, dramatic light in the foreground, with many interesting elements in the background that, in your initial edits, do not interfere with the main subject. The second version, while it has a certain beauty, eases one into the scene, while the first just hits you "blam!" in the face.
I also have not particularly liked the dodge-and-burn technique when applied to sandstone formations. I think they already have enough texture without bringing out more detail. I think it crosses a line into the surreal or what I call painterlyness. Many will say that photographers always are painting with light, and I agree. But if one wants to simply paint, why not simply use paint and an easel instead of investing time to ferret out good light, good scenes and investing thousands in digital equipment?
To make it clear, I'm not condemning Matt's rendering at all. I just prefer the first, for the reasons above. Dodge-and-burn probably nails the next one.
Best,
Glenn
P.S.: I agree with another comment that, although I'm sure it's not, the "horizon" feels tilted. I often don't know what to do with that in my own work.
|
