stefan_hunger

Although I agree that the motive is beautiful, this picture lacks the dynamic range of slide film: The shadows are too dark, the glare on the snow fields too bright. You just can't achieve the same results by digital means alone.

And I really, really don't like the title.

I agree with Neal Cardin that the original photo is good. BUT why on earth didn't you get out your watercolours and painted the scene? I think this whole Photo Shop manipulation is going to far.

(I did NOT rate the picture.)

Clear distribution of space, very geometric, with your sister adding some "curvature". I like it a lot.

The roof-line is an important element in the composition! No need to remove it.

The lighting is good, however, I had gone for a little more contrast in the foreground.

Please, don't go and tweak it any more in PS. It's great as it is.

Was it possible to shift the point of view more to the right, in order to frame the clouds between two trees? As it is right now, the tree in the centre blocks the view on the most important feature of the picture, the waterfall of clouds.

Great picture nevertheless. I would have burnt a whole roll of film on this subject...

This is a great example of an environmental portrait. I like it better than the further cropped version. Isn't this a scan from a medium format print/slide? What did you crop from the square original?

So, you actually don't have to undress your model to shoot a great portrait...

I don't think that the dark base is distracting or should be removed electronically (blasphemy!). The stark contrast amplifies very nicely the ghost-like appearance of the dancer.

However, de gustibus non est disputandem.