6.00 am, colors and atmosphere of an autumn morning in Tuscany ..

FWIW, when I look closely at a larger version of this image I am disturbed by what seems to be an odd and uneven treatment of the textures in different parts of this image. For example, there are regions that seem to be either wildly oversharpened, or, to which artificial texture has been added, immediately adjacent to regions that appear almost OOF.

To me, this gives a highly artificial overall impression in an image that otherwise seems to be trying to be quite representational.

Just my $0.02,

Tom M

This is weird, I was just recently viewing this image prior to its being chosen.
I simply don't believe it. Strikes me as a mess.

I mean, come on. Take the first home: look how the image sharpening of the field stops around the house. You've got sharper parts farther away than the near parts in the home area. And it's not just this, you can find all kinds of inconsistency that one would expect someone familiar with landscape photography to recognize immediately ... even preconsciously.

If you (you, in the general) think you have an eye for this sort of thing, best get them checked.
Sorry, Edmondo. I'm sure you were just messing around.

<<<I'm frequently puzzled by the Elves choices. I look at a POW and after a time I go to the artists portfolio and find what I think are much better pieces.>>>
---Possible puzzle solution: The elves are not picking anyone's best photo or even necessarily a good photo. They are picking a photo they think will make for a photography discussion and critique, which would sometimes be a bad photo, a photo we can learn from.---

Fred, I'm sure that is it... I'm just hung up on expecting elves to behave a certain way. Having said that, it is obvious I know nothing of elves or their behaviors.

Again with such a superficial theme and vane issue....the "titles". Why do some people get so hung up on titles? In my opinion, it is the least important aspect of a "photographic" (i.e. graphic, technical, plastic) subject. What if the author decide to include the words "atmosphere" or not??? So be it, respect the author. After all, he "felt" or wanted to share an "atmosphere", which I'm sure there was in that fine morning when he painstakingly shot this most wonderful image. The IMAGE conveys so many things. One can comment or critique on the image an all it entails, the color, the technique, the cropping, the composition, DOF, brightness, post-processing. Come on! The title?! What a waste of time to center on the title....But I guess that if someone cannot say "something" about the core aspect of the photograph - duhh.... the core aspect IS the photograph....then something has to be said about..... the title!!!, that has relatively little to do with the key issue. Let the author name its work as he/she pleases. Does someone critique the title of a Reuben's painting? Caravaggio? Michael Angelo? Does it matter? What maters, I guess, is the "content". The author is doing YOU AND ME A FAVOR in giving it some context. Take it and leave it alone. If it helps you, fine. If it does not, fine too. Comment on what the author is concerned: WHAT he photographed, HOW he photographed, HOW he/she processed the image, HOW he/she presented it, WHAT does the IMAGE tell you or HOW it makes you FEEL? Did you learn from the technique? From his/her POV? Did you delve into the time he/she took to prepare, envision, shoot and produce the I.M.A.G.E.? Phewwww.....so much for nothing!

Again with such a superficial theme and vane issue....the "titles". Why do some people get so hung up on titles? In my opinion, it is the least important aspect of a "photographic" (i.e. graphic, technical, plastic) subject. What if the author decide to include the words "atmosphere" or not??? So be it, respect the author. After all, he "felt" or wanted to share an "atmosphere", which I'm sure there was in that fine morning when he painstakingly shot this most wonderful image. The IMAGE conveys so many things. One can comment or critique on the image an all it entails, the color, the technique, the cropping, the composition, DOF, brightness, post-processing. Come on! The title?! What a waste of time to center on the title....But I guess that if someone cannot say "something" about the core aspect of the photograph - duhh.... the core aspect IS the photograph....then something has to be said about..... the title!!!, that has relatively little to do with the key issue. Let the author name its work as he/she pleases. Does someone critique the title of a Reuben's painting? Caravaggio? Michael Angelo? Does it matter? What maters, I guess, is the "content". The author is doing YOU AND ME A FAVOR in giving it some context. Take it and leave it alone. If it helps you, fine. If it does not, fine too. Comment on what the author is concerned: WHAT he photographed, HOW he photographed, HOW he/she processed the image, HOW he/she presented it, WHAT does the IMAGE tell you or HOW it makes you FEEL? Did you learn from the technique? From his/her POV? Did you delve into the time he/she took to prepare, envision, shoot and produce the I.M.A.G.E.? Phewwww.....so much for nothing!

The framing is as it should be. The foreground establishes the isolation of these two farmhouses. The bottom one is abandoned the other might be. I believe that this is more of a documentary photo rather than strictly an art photo. The title is refreshingly documentary. If you see this as a documentary work it makes more sense. The dark muddiness that nestles the farmhouses is not beautiful. It is oppressive. I feel it is a sign of neglect, which may wrong. But looking closely, everything seems abandoned, including the roads. This is not tourist Tuscany and this is not a romantic picture. Take it or leave it.

I fall into the Tom Mann and Thomas K camps on this one: weird oversharpening and strange inconsistencies all over the place.

I have one question. Was the mountain in the background artificially blurred? It might indeed be the morning mist. I hope it is.

If this is nature and not Photoshop, a shot later in the day would have been interesting with the background as sharp as the foreground.

Pretty similar point of view here, and I don't think you see the same amount of blurring:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=13041972&size=md

It's a beautifully handled and inviting pastoral scene. However, I much prefer Museeb's cropped version. The original is much to heavy in negative foreground space which really doesn't add to the scene

It's a beautifully handled and inviting pastoral scene. However, I much prefer Museeb's cropped version. The original is much to heavy in negative foreground space which really doesn't add to the scene

Yes! This critique of the week is a good illustration of Fred's explanation.

Edmondo's photograph chosen for critique this week is appealing to me. I'm especially attracted to the rolling hillsides, and I think the square format is perfectly chosen to frame the two structures in this setting. We often crop to remove empty space that doesn't contribute to the photograph, but I don't think the hillside below the structures meets that criterion at all; instead, I think it provides context for the photograph. It's the difference between "two farmhouse structures" and "two farmhouse structures in a rolling landscape of harvested fields."

The colors are a bit more intense than I would expect, and I suspect it's a matter of "who can resist" during the editing process. However, this opinion is based on limited experience of landscapes in the Pacific Northwest, which while generally not as old, are usually made of wood. I also agree with John A's concern about the upper left corner which, when viewed large, seems to show a relatively large area above a road that has been added. I just can't imagine a road ending with nothing to keep a vehicle from plunging down a steeper hillside, and the texture of the seemingly added landscape just ends too abruptly or contrasts too strongly with the rest of the hillside.

Nevertheless, I think it's a pleasant photograph nicely composed to share the aesthetic attributes of the area with viewers.

Sorry -- yet another timeout.

Most of the time when I view a photo I have an immediate response. If I'm at all drawn in, I'll revisit that response and sometimes do a 180 on it after re-examining. I try not to read other critiques that would alter my original opinion of it. But that's hard to do these days.

When I first viewed this photo I was slightly revolted (a strong word but at the moment I cannot think of another.) The top portion looks like a lung x-ray. The buildings look artificial. The bottom portion might be the most interesting but I find the color palette anemic. It certainly doesn't jive with what I expect from Autumn in Tuscany. Hitchcock might have loved this rendition of Autumn in Tuscany.

So . . . I don't care for this photo. Nothing personal, Edmondo. I do enjoy many other photos in your galleries.

I like it very much. Tuscany is wonderful and this is a good image of it. Regards

I love this shot. Perhaps because I am drawn to the 2D aspect of it and the composition that omits everything but what is needed in the frame. I also don't like the cropped version anywhere as much as Edmondo's that uses the foreground much more creatively and renders a much nicer use of scale. I think the cropped version is predictable and creates more tension at top and bottom, making the image much less engaging. I like the sense of space in Edmondo's crop, as well as the muted colors and the subtle lighting. One tiny detail that bothers me is the little "thing" in the upper left-hand corner; it appears to be a monster insect, but who knows? Congrats, Edmondo, nice job!

Daniel G., thanks for continuing the discussion on titles. I probably would never just comment on a title here, but have no problem commenting on a title in conjunction with comments on the photo, which is what I did in my post above. I don't comment on titles instead of but as an addition to commenting on the photos. I consider a title often part of the presentation of the photo, sometimes more a part of the photo, sometimes less. Just as I might comment on someone's choice of a mat or a frame or the lighting at a gallery, I think it's important to notice and be constructive about titles and other matters of presentation. We don't see photos without presentation so presentation can have a lot of effect on what we're actually seeing. A title can set the tone for how we view a photo. Some photographers do that quite intentionally, others use titles more as a cataloguing mechanism. I've had some helpful feedback on my own methods of presentation, including titles, which I never took as anything but constructive and I learned from what people said about such matters.

As for the relationship of titles and the work, I was just at a Salvador Dali exhibit today, and this was what he titled one of his paintings:

Skull with Its Lyric Appendage Leaning on a Night Table which Should Have the Exact Temperature of a Cardinal's Nest

Certainly, Dali is the exception to many rules, but I think we find many great visual artists who put a lot of thought into their titles and understood an important relationship between their titles and the works. Others, of course, did not.

I think this pic is so far removed from the original, that i have to question, is it a photograph ? or is it photo-animation ?
I am all in favor of enhancing an image, but when one alters the original scene too much, then in my view this is an all together different medium.

I think this pic is so far removed from the original, that i have to question, is it a photograph ? or is it photo-animation ?
I am all in favor of enhancing an image, but when one alters the original scene too much, then in my view this is an all together different medium.