RustyBug wrote:
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.
Freekin' awesome image! 👍🏼👏🏼⭐️ Awesome for B+W.
This type of image is perfect to exploit that 32-bit Raw processing workflow. Black and whites are where I see the most immediate improvements. No grain, no blotch and the smoothest of transitions.
Because I miss things sometimes ... And I am asking for assistance for the extra eyes and minds in case i Missed something that might be pertinent to the beat that I am drumming to.
Just because I'm asking folks to see if I missed a beat, doesn't mean I'm changing my tune, or marching to their beat.
No need for me to be concerned if they march to a beat different from me ... as they often do.
chez wrote:
Why do you seek critiques on your images...your pic, your party...follow your own drumbeat.
chez wrote:
And what gives you the impression I’m “changing my tune”? I asked if this image works as a b&w image…you seem to be digging deeper than need be here.
You made it a point to question what folks were doing with color in the Landscape Forum. My point was, when you make stuff as nice as you do, why are you wondering about what others do ... I never suggested you were changing your tune, just that I didn't see the need for your concern about the tune others are marching to.
You made the point that color is all the rave (in the B&W Forum). I just failed to see its relevance to your good work.
BTW ... what IS that blob in the water? I still can't figure it out for sure. My best guess was a bird atop the tree that flew off during exposure ... and got cloned out in the top, but not the bottom.
What do I think? It still needs some PP smoothing in sky, clean the 10 or so dust bunnies in background and the hair or whatever on the sensor in the water reflection and to the left of the tree on left and its ready to print.
As for the picture itself? Its a winner - worthy to be printed large.
For what it is worth...
If I had to print this image I would probably try to produce two versions:
1. Just the top part that ends "below" the shore and includes a bit of trees reflections
2. Same framing as presented but with reflections toned down a bit.
As presented, after an initial glance around the image I can't help but stare in the dead center of it, partially because equally bright and symmetrical peaks and their reflections each equally strongly compete for viewer's attention. The center becomes a safety zone
SergeyT wrote:
For what it is worth...
If I had to print this image I would probably try to produce two versions:
1. Just the top part that ends "below" the shore and includes a bit of trees reflections
2. Same framing as presented but with reflections toned down a bit.
As presented, after an initial glance around the image I can't help but stare in the dead center of it, partially because equally bright and symmetrical peaks and their reflections each equally strongly compete for viewer's attention. The center becomes a safety zone
Because it’s a true mirror image and both halves having a bright area, my eyes tend to wander back and forth between the real side and the reflection. I even scan the reflection to inspect if all details from above are being reflected back from the water. I think toning down the reflection or in fact cutting it totally out would diminish the image as you’d quickly draw attention only to the bright peaks.
Agree with the comments about this being very special and worthy of a print for sure after some cleanup. I do have a technical question - is the visible blotchiness the result of the conversion and pushing hard on shadows? Or is it that you added grain in PP and it didn't quite work and it could be dialed back? Once in a while I find that if I am getting some of this blotchiness from pushing shadows that I can cope with it by adding grain on purpose, and going with an old-school look that has clear grain (think Tri-X if that's your language).
I guess I'm going to have to check this out on the big monitor. I'm sitting here looking at it with my phone screen and it's knocking my socks off. I can't see any flaws at all. To be continued...
Cheers,
Brent
The composition is perfect, lighting is great and the mirror like water surface is amazing. This image really deserves to be worked on further. On the big monitor I could easily see the sensor spots and the graininess in the sky. I played with it on my desktop for a couple of minutes and the results were gorgeous.
