Discussion in 'Critique Forum Archives' started by craig, Apr 17, 2005.
I think I like this one the most from this morning's photo adventure. Hit me with the crit's!!!
The foreground and ground leading up to the mountains is a bit dark. Try lightening it up a bit. Seems as if it were darkened to make everything more rich, namely the sky.
Sorry to disagree, Hellashot, but the photo is balanced enough - it may well be monitor calibration problems that lead to saying a photo is too dark. I know what I am talking about, I had one of those "the-photo-is-so-dark-I-can't-make-out-a-thing-monitors" myself until recently. On my new flat screen, it is all there, the grass, the roots, the second part of the double tree-trunk broken off right where the hills end and the mountains in the background begin... wow. Great.
Thanks!!! Looking at the photo; I saw it needed some highlights. I like this version better.
I like what youre trying for, but the mound at edge of the field is forming unnatural looking base to the mountains IMO, you need to be higher in the air, have you seen old photos of landscape photographers standing on back of station wagons, as for the color both versions are fine & #1 maybe a little better
i think the first one is better it has more of a dromatic look, but it would be better if it was taken from higher up
I would like to see a vertical crop for center of the tree only
I would like to see a B&W version, on a cloudy day and the tree iluminated (flash or something)to underexpose the background . I would probably use a ND filter in order to darken the sky a have a right exposure for the ground.
It probably should give it a dramatical look without using software tunning.
Thanks for the tips! I am obsessed with this paticular location of trees. I can tell that this is the first attempt of many.
Separate names with a comma.