Musings on photography, the art of creating images, technical talk, useful tips, rants and ravings of a published photographer of 40+ years experience.
Very nice! Tranquility comes to mind. Was this with you somewhat new 40D?
No, used the 1Ds2. I remember using my 10D in pouring rain though, for about 10 minutes - no problems, no protection over camera. Perhaps a bit of a gamble but in that instance got a great shot.George
Let me try to critique this image.George, my reactions to your images are quite different, and I do like many of them. This one looked too busy in small, so I clicked to see the large version.My first reaction was very positive, but after a minute or two of looking, I was not so sure any more.Obviously a lot of care has gone into choosing the image crop (mostly in camera, I assume), and the composition looks very well balanced. The darker stump on the left balances well with the two larger ones on the right. I find it good that the parallax distortion has not been corrected -- the not quite vertical tree trunks start a nice arch that is continued by the very light needle tree in the lower left. This arch is nicely picked up by the two large stumps on the right and returned back into the image by the thin branches in the upper corner.While traveling along this arch I notice the interesting water swirls, but the dark stump in the lower middle of the image stops me dead in my tracks. Obviously there is nothing you could have done about it, but I find its presence nonetheless unfortunate.OK, so now I've looked at the entire image. What it is about? What is the main subject? Do I want to look at it any longer?That's where I'm left hanging in the air. The entire image is in focus and the entire image is almost equally bright. The arch that I was talking about exists because of the shapes in the image, but not because of the tones. There is no depth. Due to the uniform sharpness and brightness, all elements of the image appear to be at the same distance from the viewer (which of course is not true). And they appear to have equal importance, which too is not true.I suspect that the original image had more tonal depth and maybe even more focus depth (this might be a blend of several images). I read your blog regularly and know that you go to great lengths to bring the tones and the focus under control, but I think for this image you've gone too far.Apart from this main critique point, I'm also slightly bothered by the alignment of the dead tree trunk (second from left) and the needle tree behind it.Overall, I'd say I like the image, but not enough to bookmark it and come back to it later. (But I have bookmarked several of your other images.)Do you care to critique my critique? I'll be happy to hear your thoughts about this image.
In response to the valid comments by noart,I have redone the image and present it as a new blog entry.
Post a Comment