I know what I think about this image. What do you think about this image?
Where does it work? Where does it fail?
I know what I think about this image. What do you think about this image?
Where does it work? Where does it fail?
I must say it bears a striking resemblence to my screen saver.
does the image work? why or why not?
My eye enters at the bottom of the light lava formations and follows them up to the black peak, but then stalls out amidst the jumbled dark peaks of the background. It seems like the real subject is the formation in the foreground, but it's not set off well against the dark peaks and should figure more prominently in the image. The blocked shadows in the dark peaks don't help either because my eye is looking for something to move to after it travels up the formation.
A lot of images made there by a lot of photographers. Unless you can do something unique, why bother?
Comments:
>Too far away.
>Would be better with a looming foreground.
>Sky adds nothing.
>Only need a narrow strip of dark distant mountains; tops of those mountains are not interesting.
>>Keep at it and bring us another one.
in terms of your first question Jay I was a total novice (1996) when I took that image
my take is that it's a breath taking view in person but not necessarily a great composition, graphically it's weak in the top half and the overall geometry doesn't work for me either
there may be an image in here yet ... we shall see ... if possible don't surprise me with your rendition ... last time that happened I went with it!
Joe,
although this kind of photography is not my daily bread I will take a ...stabat it.
Staring from the foreground, the lighting interferes with the shapes of the formation, I would have waited until the sun would have set to get a softer feel.
This would have acted as well on the formation on the background which is too contrasty revealing almost nothing in the shadow areas.
As a poster wrote I would eliminate the sky.
I would add that the light rock on the right bothers me, the tones are too light , so I would balance it with the light rock which is at the left.
I would actually compose the image on a vertical frame and crop it almost square and darken the foreground in order to balance it with the background and "contain" the image better..
I would also darken all the other sides of the image as well.
Here's the image I would be more prone to make.
Ehmm, I am sorry....
There's nothing really horizontal or vertical in the shot, it's all wavey lines.
If you like wavey lines, cool, but I have nothing to relate with. But I like the tonal range, and the subject matter might work with a different composition - probably a wider lens for more sense of distance.
My eye slips across the image and off of the right side -- compositionally, it does not capture my eye and hold it within it. If it was on a wall, my eye would slide right by it and onwards to the next print -- leaving no lasting impression of the image. By definition (my own), this means the image does not "work".
It appears the image is more about the wonderful forms created by the light on the landscape -- not about the Place. If so, then the skyline, as presented, only distracts rather than adds to the image.
If you have not done so, I would suggest physically entering the space, experiencing it and making it part of your consciencousness...wander around down there for a few hours, take a few detail images then return to this vantage point and remake this image...if you still feel at this point there is a need to.
It's YOUR photograph.
Do not confuse the photograph with the memory.
If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. If you're not happy with it, throw in in the trash and move on.
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks