It's upside down.
Bottom mountain seems sharper in reflection, while trees seem softer in reflection. Unsure if that is a natural phenomenon or something else.
Couple things catch my attention. There seems to be some kind of blur in the water, atop a tree that doesn't exist in the non-reflection half. Maybe a bird, that got cloned out up top, but not on bottom.
Dust bunny nearby that, as well.
Just a few things to check before print, to make sure they are the way you want them to be.
I typically don't like to comment on flaws for images in a presentation forum. I really like this except for one issue. There is a lot of grain and blotchy appearance in the sky and foreground water. Some of it might be due to sensor dust. Perhaps you applied heavy sharpening to the whole image. Regardless of the cause a quick fix would greatly improve this image.
Love the composition. I would clean up some of the sensor dust especially the smudge atop the tree reflection. But otherwise would make a very nice B&W print.
It's upside down.
Bottom mountain seems sharper in reflection, while trees seem softer in reflection. Unsure if that is a natural phenomenon or something else.
Couple things catch my attention. There seems to be some kind of blur in the water, atop a tree that doesn't exist in the non-reflection half. Maybe a bird, that got cloned out up top, but not on bottom.
Dust bunny nearby that, as well.
Just a few things to check before print, to make sure they are the way you want them to be.
Yep, I saw those along with some blotchy area. Definitely needs more work if I print it. I'm more interested in if it works for people as a B&W image rather than the usual colour we see on the landscape board.
Certainly works as a B&W for me - beautiful composition, but like others have said needs a lot of work. I see many dust spots, plus the smudge in the water
This has a wonderful feeling to it and I really like it in B&W. I do agree with some of the other comments that it needs some clean up. Once you do that you’ll have something special.
chez wrote:
But isn't Classic a rave into itself? Sort of like shooting film using retro cameras?
Not sure I follow what you're saying here ... sounds a bit circular.
My point is ... shoot what you want, to say what you want to say (as you do rather well). It's your party ... whether or not it is the same as the other parties. Besides, sometimes folks are ahead of the en vogue crowd, while others are so far behind, they look like their ahead ... and others are so far ahead, they look (to others) like their behind.
Your pic, your message, your call. If you're worried about what the others are doing, then you're either not confident in your own, or you're spending your valuable energy on chasing what others are doing.
First we learn to emulate (copy / chase), then we learn to create. Imo, you're so far past the "emulate" phase, IDK why you would give two hoots about what the landscape forum is doing.
You march to the beat of your own drum ... why worry about the tune they're crankin' out? I'd think you'd be more concerned about that blob in your excellent image before you go to print.
