The shadow

... Worth anything more than 3.25/3.38? This is a repost, after such

ratings. Well, what is your honest opinion from this one? If this is

such crap, please tell me why. Thank you for your time and critique!

Al;po, my usual reaction, when I see the "I wasn't rated as high as I think I should have been" or the "3/3" whine, is to want to plug in a 2/2 for lack of maturity and go on my way. You, however, are a better photographer than that.

 

Outside of a passing cleverness factor, this image, to me, is not particularly interesting.

 

I will share another thought that I have about critique sites. A lot of the photographs viewed out of context of the site are better than they will ever do on the site because here they are surrounded by photographs with considerably more impact and photographs that are unbearably uninteresting. That association on both ends dilutes a lot of images that frankly should be but aren't received better. I feel certain that the average time that most images get viewed for rating is counted in seconds if not microseconds. That is inadequate for seeing or reading a photograph.

 

I occasionally look at the ratings of those that complain about the ratings they have received and frequently they may range from a 2/2 to a 6/6 for the same image. That should tell you that there is a lot of flexibility in the way the viewers perceive the images on critique sites. A lot of it is the luck of the draw on who sees your images and pushes the rating button. If you post to a critique site, you should not expect that everyone is going to see your image in the same light that you do.

 

Although I grew up in Texas and appreciate not only the beauty of horses but the part that they have played in our history as well, I have no desire to really get close to any animal that is larger than I am and has the potential for smelling much worse. So I am probably not a good critic for horse pictures.

 

However, I will take on the cleverness factor of your image and tell you what it would require to get a higher rating from me. I cannot speak for anyone else.

 

I will spare you my painter's add, photographer's subtract lecture, but the image, if cleverness is you point, can be given more impact by simplifying the composition to really bring that home. As it is, it is difficult to say if the horse or the shadow is the intended subject, so I would get rid of the horse, the green grass, the swishing tail the fence post. I have included an example. I did not even see the "rock eye" until I got rid of what I consider unnecessary elements in the image. Now when I look at the image I see color harmony that unifies the image, I see the cleverness of shadow horse with the rock eye and I have enough of the horse, the legs, left to put the image in perspective. I don't rate photographs but if I did this would rate higher than the original image.

 

By "cleverness" I mean the ability to see and capture the unusual, the unexpected in a way that the viewer can enjoy. "Weirdness'" would be to rotate the example ninety degrees right. Hope this puts some light on the image from one person's perspective.

 

Nice and original! Ivana

Alpo, sorry to rant on, but one more thought. Shadows are most often seen as ancillary elements and I think that happens in your original post. After comparing the two images on the same page I realized that when I look at your original crop my eye automatically goes to the horse and really wants to see more of the horses' head. That is where it wants to stay. I think it is a good possibility that most viewers, like myself, are seeing a rather unusual composition with a truncated subject. It is a good possibility that many did not pay a great deal of attention to the shadow beyond it being a compositional element.