lifeless Shelter

Whilst :) I realize that this is not a breathtaking image, I feel it has some interesting elements. The colour and texture of the rocks, the contrast in scale compared to the tiny house overlooking the Skagerak, combined with the threatening clouds (the torrential rains started shortly after this) and my own invention: the rule of fourths.

 

Which raises two questions: 1. are there too many elements? (For instance, would it be better to either have the sky much larger or to focus on the rock and try to get the background all sky?)

And 2. is the composition right?

For comparison I messed around in photoshop and made this version also. Which one do you like better?

 

Thanks for your help!

in response to your questions in the critique forum:

i like this picture. I think the colour version is more appealing than the b/w one, because of the beautiful warm reddish colour in the rocks set agains the blue of the sky and sea.

 

Perhaps the composition could be simplified by lowering the angle to not have the bit of land behind the building (it intercepts the building). But I like what I think you saw and show us which is the proportions between the building and the rock.

 

thanks.

I think it gives a beautiful sense of peace but at the same time a feeling of isolation...

great picture!

I definitely like your original cropping better, though I think the lack of color in your Photoshopped version adds to the image. I like the tonal range in the image, but I'm not so fond of the pinkish-orange of the rocks, and think removing the distraction of color really emphasized the range of the rocks and the composition. Great photograph.

Jeroen,

 

I agree with Kim, the land behind the house distracts from what, to me, the composition is all about -- the rock leading your eye to the house. In that respect, the clouds have no bearing (or is that baring?) on the composition. To me they play no part. I might even have liked it better if there where no clouds. Mind you I am not saying no sky, but no clouds... I have lived in the US for a while now and have grown acustomed to sunlight which has an all together different look about it then it has in Europe (or is it just that Europe has less bright sunny days?) and thus I find that the color of the rock is not warm enough (Look at all the !RED! rock in the photographs of the slot canyons). Maybe I am just sedated by this countries preference for over more saturated colors (or did I just never notice that preference in my 28 years in the Netherlands??)

 

Interesting image!

 

Jeroen.

Unfortunately, Carlos, the place was neither peaceful nor isolated. In fact, I struggled to avoid including speed boats in the picture. The colours were subdued, I already increased the contrast and saturation a little. Slide film would've probably made for more tonality and better Disney colours. Now, I guess it is more European, which of course means quaint, subtle and refined :)

Is there really that big a difference, Jeroen? I thought many of the spectacular desert shots owed a lot to Velvia. I will have to check this myself some day.

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for your feedback!!! Here's another photoshopped version based on your suggestions.

Well i think that goes to show that it was an excellent picture...because you really were able to convey a feeling of isolation and peace when in reality the place was neither... although i do agree that the land is somewhat distracting, but at least to me, it didnt take away the focus from the house...

Looking bck on earlier criticism, yeah a lot of spectacular nature shots probably do have more in common with film type than with reality. Having said that I still would have prefered more "punch". If that means I am slowely being assimilated, let it be :-)

First of all I like the warm tones in the rocks and they are repeated, a little, in the clouds....I like the clouds they add drama, second the tiny shelter is a wonderful design element to the composition because it gives some scale to the rocks and third I don't mind the little bit of land in the background...it gives a sense of place to the "shelter". You could reshoot by a yet lower position and perhaps elimanate the background. My vote is NO to the B&W version.

You're right, some day I need to go back to Sweden en redo this shot... Just south of G�teborg in case you end up in the neighbourhood. Well worth it, the country! Did I mention above the contents of the dramatic clouds that came down just a few minutes after? :) Thanks for you thoughts!