john_ries

Juergen,

 

This is an interesting image I think. A nice representation of monochromatic style. It could probably have more effectiveness if it were part of a series rather than as a stand alone subject. It certainly shows the beauty in simplicity and in the detail of nature. Certainly the image type is nothing new but this particular image is unique and it has good merits. You did a nice job with the digital process.

I enjoy the texture created in the fur by the lighting angle. I think the crop is fine, that's what creates some impact. I'm not real crazy about the blue eye like some others have noted, perhaps it would be less objectionable to me if it was less saturated with just a hint of blue. As it appears it makes me think of digital as soon as I look at it and notice the eye. Overall a very nice photo with impact and it gets a viewers attention. Nice job.

The digital image caught my attention as a result of the overly bright saturated color of the tomato. However, the trail through the water is the image element that I find the most interesting. It's a strong image based on initial impact in my opinion due to the bold over saturated color of the tomato only. The photo is quite good from that respect, however to me it looks like a typical oversaturated digital image which seems to be the pattern of rank and file image making these days. Like some others have implied it doesn't do anything for me from an aesthetic standpoint either. This image would probably be a good stock seller due to the impact aspect that others have also noted. I think the composition within the frame could be improved upon as the image seems out of balance to me but I also realize this is not an easy thing to control when attempting this type of image. Basically speaking in my opinion this is an attractive image but it screams "digital" and is very unrealistic in terms of color saturation and tonal range and I think that hurts the potential of the image in the eye of an experienced editor, buyer, photographer or anyone else whom appreciates realistic imaging. As an illustration it has strong impact and color and is certainly bold. That doesn't necessarily make it a great image and I believe much of the commentary has overlooked what makes an image a good image. This image is a excellent example of the technical potential of the camera in a given situation and Fabian should be congratulated on succeeding to capture that aspect. I think some additional cropping could further enhance the images impact and desaturating it a bit would make it seem more real and not phoney. Fabian deserves credit on capturing the boldness of the image after 100 attempts, that's perseverence and a commitment to obtaining a satisfactory result. Now I think Fabian needs to sit back and be his own best critic and look at the image objectively and "see" where it could be improved upon and think hard about what makes an image a success. We have no idea if any manipulation has taken place on this image, that is a problematic aspect of imaging today.......truth and integrity in imaging. I assume Fabian would have indicated manipulation in his technical breakdown had it taken place. All in all a good effort and a good image reflective of the effort taken and the type of illustrative image that it is.

All in all this is a nice simple clean image.

I generally agree with some of the other comments regarding some fundamental compositional improvements that could have been made. The image is graphically strong but falls short in picture element placement. I also agree with others that the horizon is not level. The photographer should have stuck with the rule of thirds with this image. I believe the greatest improvement could have been made by not framing the runner exiting the frame. Space is needed in front of a moving object, composition 101. That and the combination of all the concentrated highlights in the upper left of the image draws a viewers eye right out of the image.

 

It is easy to understand that the photographer was concerned with the old breakwater leading the viewer to the subject being the runner. The problem is that the runner is too close to the frame edge. The rendering of the sky is everything in this image, it is the only source of interesting detail.

 

In comparison:

I would have framed from a much lower angle of view closer to the runner with the runner leaping over the breakwater silouetted against the sky/ clouds with less uninteresting beach in the foreground. I would have made sure the small pool of water (distracting highlight) next to breakwater would not have been included in the image.