Not your average swans

[SquarePeg5 4]

I know this processing is not for everyone but it works for me. What do you think?

Swans by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[WesternGuy]

Nice image, but I am not sure what you mean when you say this processing is not for everyone. I have no problem with the processing. The only thing I would do, if it were mine, is to crop it a little closer and take the swans and the "horizon" (land-shore line) out of the centre of the picture. Doing so would hopefully show the swans as the main subject of the image, but moving the swans to the right third, gives them some space to "swim" into on the left.

WesternGuy

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

Nice image, but I am not sure what you mean when you say this processing is not for everyone. I have no problem with the processing. The only thing I would do, if it were mine, is to crop it a little closer and take the swans and the "horizon" (land-shore line) out of the centre of the picture. Doing so would hopefully show the swans as the main subject of the image, but moving the swans to the right third, gives them some space to "swim" into on the left.

WesternGuy

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll see how that different composition looks but not sure it can be any closer, it's already a heavy crop. My comment on the processing is because it's a bit smoothed and more like a painting than a photo, at least to me...

 

[PersistentNomad]

I personally would prefer to see the processing fade in from the edges, and leave the swans more clear and less painterly. But, it's a stylistic preference for the photographer (and the viewer).

 

[WesternGuy]

Nice image, but I am not sure what you mean when you say this processing is not for everyone. I have no problem with the processing. The only thing I would do, if it were mine, is to crop it a little closer and take the swans and the "horizon" (land-shore line) out of the centre of the picture. Doing so would hopefully show the swans as the main subject of the image, but moving the swans to the right third, gives them some space to "swim" into on the left.

WesternGuy

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll see how that fifferentcomposition looks but not sure it can be any closer, it's already a heavy crop. My comment on the processing is because it's a bit smoothed and more like a painting than a photo, at least to me...

No problem. I guess I didn't catch on that there was a painterly effect going on here and I don't mind that at all. I have experimented with Topaz Impressions 2 on some of my own imagery with mixed results. I am always of the opinion that the photographer, in this case, you, is the artist and however he/she wishes to interpret a scene is entirely up to him/her. If it works for you, then that really is all that matters in the end. I always work from the position that regardless of what I do, I will never satisfy all the viewers all the time, so I might as well satisfy myself. I am, of course, always open to input from others, but then it is up to me whether I accept it or not, so whether someone accepts my critique or not is entirely up to them. It never bothers me, if folks choose to ignore my input because, in the end, they are the judge of what works for them, and that is what really counts.

WesternGuy

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

Nice image, but I am not sure what you mean when you say this processing is not for everyone. I have no problem with the processing. The only thing I would do, if it were mine, is to crop it a little closer and take the swans and the "horizon" (land-shore line) out of the centre of the picture. Doing so would hopefully show the swans as the main subject of the image, but moving the swans to the right third, gives them some space to "swim" into on the left.

WesternGuy

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll see how that fifferentcomposition looks but not sure it can be any closer, it's already a heavy crop. My comment on the processing is because it's a bit smoothed and more like a painting than a photo, at least to me...

No problem. I guess I didn't catch on that there was a painterly effect going on here and I don't mind that at all. I have experimented with Topaz Impressions 2 on some of my own imagery with mixed results. I am always of the opinion that the photographer, in this case, you, is the artist and however he/she wishes to interpret a scene is entirely up to him/her. If it works for you, then that really is all that matters in the end. I always work from the position that regardless of what I do, I will never satisfy all the viewers all the time, so I might as well satisfy myself. I am, of course, always open to input from others, but then it is up to me whether I accept it or not, so whether someone accepts my critique or not is entirely up to them. It never bothers me, if folks choose to ignore my input because, in the end, they are the judge of what works for them, and that is what really counts.

WesternGuy

Hmmm. I have the Topaz suite of filters but I don't think Impressions is one of them, is that something new? I'll have to check that when I get home. I used a shadow recovery filter in Topaz Adjust and it gave it that smooth look and really brightened the foliage.

 

[dannylightning]

good shot, i would definitely crop it a bit though. its a little dark but still looks good.

 

[WesternGuy]

Topaz Impressions - https://www.topazlabs.com/impression . Scroll down to see the reference to Impressions 2. You do not have to buy Impressions and then update to Impressions 2, you can buy Impressions 2 direct as I did, but I don't seem to be able to find such a page now. You can also get a 30 day trial. HTH.

WesternGuy

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

Since a few people commented that it should be cropped a in a bit and it was a bit dark, I gave this a re-edit. I like the swans dead center. I also cloned out that distracting bright blue tarp that could be seen through the trees. This was a heavy crop to begin with. Now even more so. Too much?Thoughts?

Swans2 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[kundalini]

I would say the first image is about average. The second is an improvement, but still fail to see the unaverageness.
Is that even a word? Wait.... according to the Trump dictionary.....

I do like the "painterly" processing on the background.

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

I would say the first image is about average. The second is an improvement, but still fail to see the unaverageness.
Is that even a word? Wait.... according to the Trump dictionary.....

I do like the "painterly" processing on the background.

Yeah, it was just a title based more on the processing and the way the Nature gallery always has so many awesomely sharp and detailed bird shots but I guess it confused everyone into thinking I thought my shot was above average, lol.

And please do not mention He Who Shall Not Be Named in my online presence. I just ate.

 

[kundalini]

Please accept my apologies.

 

[TMorrow]

I like the second one very much. The graininess from the close crop adds to the painterly feel of it. That's what I think!

 

[nzmacro]

The second one makes them stand out more and with that work, not a bad feel to it at all. Guy's tend to get over techie on stuff and yet, some of the best nature shooters out there are females. My favourite macro shooter is a French girl, they just see and work differently.

All the best and nicely done IMO with that feel in PP and considering its a heavy crop.

Danny.

 

[SquarePeg5 4]

I like the second one very much. The graininess from the close crop adds to the painterly feel of it. That's what I think!

Thanks for your comments.

The second one makes them stand out more and with that work, not a bad feel to it at all. Guy's tend to get over techie on stuff and yet, some of the best nature shooters out there are females. My favourite macro shooter is a French girl, they just see and work differently.

All the best and nicely done IMO with that feel in PP and considering its a heavy crop.

Danny.

Thanks for the feedback Danny. Many of my favorite flower and still life photographers are women. P/S- your signature about eating the boots cracked me up.