"Ogre's window" - Fagaras Mountains,Romania

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread

Pentax SP500 ,Prinzflex 28mm/2.8 ,Konica VX 100ASA.

-- Adrian Sorescu (guide@dial.roknet.ro), July 17, 1998

Answers

Adrian,

I liked better the "moody" pictures (softer, clouded) you showed here previously. A technical remark: The sky doesn't seem real on this picture, it's too blue. Did you use a polarizer?

-- Jana Mullerova (jam@terma.com), July 17, 1998.


Unfortunately I do not have a remote control for the clouds :-). No haven't a polariser.The image is not manipulated! It's the Konica VX100ASA film (always almost incredible sky on this film) and the camera settings. Above 2000m the sky is deep blue . On the same roll I have overexposed pictures with washed-out sky(more details in greens and rocks) , and pictures with deep blue sky ( the lab prints the whole roll with same setting of the printing machine .I'm living in Romania ... ) You can see other (softer, clouded) recent pictures of mine at photo.net/photo or at http://www.angelfire.com/mt/oricum/index.html

-- Adrian Sorescu (guide@dial.roknet.ro), July 17, 1998.

Nice composition, but I find the bright white cloud and the solid strip of black shadow too distracting. Better light would have made a better shot, but sometimes you just have to take what you can get.

-- Rich Ruh (pathfinder@poboxes.com), July 17, 1998.

I'd like the picture better if it were just of the rock on the left with the sky. The contrast between the hard rock and soft clouds of the sky is nice. The underexposed greenish brown patch on the bottom right quarter just doesn't add anything.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 17, 1998.

It's too busy and there's not really a subject. The arch is halfway hidden and too small to be a real subject. The horizon is in the middle vertically, so I don't know whether I'm supposed to be looking at the sky or the foreground. Worse, the frame is split 50-50 horizontally as well. Altogether, I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), July 17, 1998.


Nice subject. I'd agree with others that the light is too contrasty. It would probably be worthwile to re-shoot this at dawn or dusk, when the sky has a warm tone.

-- Richard Shiell (rshiell@lightspeed.net), July 18, 1998.

I agree 100% with Richard's suggestion of waiting for better light.

-- Carlos Co (co@che.udel.edu), July 19, 1998.

The composition doesn't work at all for me. I don't even know where to look at. The stone arch cramped into the upper left corner? The masses of stone in the lower left? The path leading up to it in the lower right? Uninteresting cloud formation doesn't help either.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), July 20, 1998.

I find it interesting that opinions appear strongly divided on this composition. It's certainly a violation of the old "rule of thirds" (which says, in effect, that the points of intersection of a tic-tac-toe board superimposed over the image are where the main interest belongs). It's nice to see original compositions in this forum.

To my eye there are two things going on in this image; first, horizontal division in the background, secondly, violation of that division in the foreground. The horizontal/diagonal and background/foreground interplay interests me quite a bit. What bugs me is that bit of cloud viewed through the hole.

In other words, I think this picture is a study in the interaction of masses and voids, as it says nothing about any particular subject. If the sky were cloudless and warm-toned, and if the image had less contrast, it might appeal to a broader audience.

-- Richard Shiell (rshiell@lightspeed.net), July 20, 1998.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ