paul_frank

it'd be beautifl if not for the blow-out and the WAY over burned sky.

i read your question about the 2/2 ratings without comments, and I'll leave comments here, because I felt this image had the most potential. I see a bunch of reasons why you get low ratings/no comments:

 

-poor scans/ image processing. I've attached this image with a little work. I think you need to work on your photoshop techniques more. alot of your images have color casts and marginal contrast. fixing these will make your images stand out more and be taken more seriously.

 

-you need to be more critical of your images and look into cropping more. this is a good case in point. you have alot of images with the trademark "novice" blown-out sky. That type of image will never impress anyone. In this image, what is the sky doing for the image? nothing. crop it out. this can be said for alot of images, not just yours. there is no rule that the sky has to be in every lanscape image.

 

-stay away from cliches. alot of your landscape/nature images have really cliched visualizations, such as the "sillhouetted land mass with vivid sunset sky," the "wooden stairs leading out of the frame," and the "old wooden fence with sky." everyone has seen these before, and you need to challege yourself to try more imaginative images.

 

sorry to be brutally honest, but hopefully these suggestions will help you in the future.

perhaps your best image.

another great one. perhaps we just have substantially different monitors, but again I find that this lacks the contrast it needs to really pop. the tonal difference between the bright sky and the central rocks (both the actual forms and the reflection) is lacking.

 

great stuff.

I'll second the comment that it could use a bit more contrast, but not much. In my opinion there's a bit of unneeded elements here that weaken the image overall. The foreground rocks occupy too much of the frame, as does the dark sky at the top. The arrangment of rock islands are what really make this outstanding and I think the image is stronger when they are emphasized more. The inclusion of the foreground rocks is useful to anchor the image but I don't think you need as much as you included. I like this crop better, but as usual, this is just my personal preference.

 

 

Keep the great coastal stuff coming!

Another exceptional image. While the rock/waterfall in the foreground is placed in an unorthodox part of the frame, it works and definitely strengthens the composition.

 

I can't help but think that you burned in the top and bottom too much, though. you've apparently burned in all the edges, which serves to focus the eye towards the center, but the center of the frame is not the key element here. the key elements of off at the sides and corners, surrounding the center. Also, the burns have killed alot of your highlights, such that they don't 'pop' the way they could. Finally, the dodge in the lower left is too obvious.

 

Pardon me for doing this, but with a little dodging/burning, and a levels adjustment, I prefer it but perhaps it's just my taste. Very nice image!

i am i the only one to notice the yellow/red color cast? maybe it's my monitor. It's also a little flat, in my opinion.

 

I like the idea of the shadow as the foreground subject, and the cloud pattern is unusual, but otherwise i'm not drawn into the scene, it seems sort of formulaic - the vertical wideangle landscape with emphasized foreground. i'm not seeing anything that really grabs me.

interesting idea and i like the placement of subjects in the frame, balanced yet unbalanced. did the cloud colors get better a few minutes later or was this the moment? more thought provoking and something more interesting to investigate with the eyes than the other recent posts. good job!

I have to admit, I can't possibly see any reason why you would have shot this. I think that this is the kind of thing digital photography promotes. Without the limitation of the cost of film and processing, one is free to shoot whatever one wants without expense (once you own the camera and computer of course). Maybe it's just me being a bitter traditionalist, but I find alot of boring photography has surfaced since digital took hold, and I think it's because it's just so easy to shoot whatever one wants, whenever one wants. Perhaps I'm way off, and this kind of experimentation is where photography is headed. I am sorry to be harsh but there is just nothing interesting here.

 

There, now I'm off my soapbox. Thanks for posting, Pedrag.

the best executed images appear to glow from within, and provide depth such that the viewer loses the sensation of looking at a 2-dimensional image. even with the diminished quality/tonality of an electronic image, I feel this way looking at this. one of your best!

exceptional study of tones and textures. unbelieveable moment and I can't image it would be possible to execute capturing it on film better.

by far the best of your newest work. exceptional on many levels. the tonality and play of contrasts in the different areas of the print are quite engaging. well done.

i agree it's an intriguing image, but i see a really obvious dodge on the plants? am i right? what's going on there?

for me, that's all it is. a lily dead center-frame. well executed for what it is, but for me, it's just not engaging enough to pique my interest.

interesting arrangement of parts that works. Edge burning is a common b&w technique which helps draw attention toward the middle of the image. Many images tend to have density fall-off towards the edges (as you have here) which tends to lead the eyes away from a central subject (which you have here). Darkening the edges serves to keep the eyes in the middle of the frame, which would help here. the bright lower right could be burned in as well. otherwise, the detail in shadows and highlights is good, and as I said before, the placement of elements is well done.

beautiful scene, but a weak spot is the tone of the surf, in my opinion. it's middle grey, should it not be closer to white, maybe zone VII? Personal taste, I guess, but it takes emphasis away from the breaking surf when it's so dark, I think if it were significantly lightened the image would have more life and luminosity.

looks flat to me, and heavily weighted to the right side. a levels adjustment helps, in my opinion, but in the end I don't find the subject hugely attractive. the water is well captured, but I'm either needing something more or something less as far as the rocks are concerned.

real nice. much better than most of this kind of shot. the simplistic approach was good.

stunning, perhaps your best.

those rating this at 7/7 ought to have a look at mangelsen's, version. I really like alot of your other photographs but I have to say, this is no doubt the most cliched wildlife shot in existance.

yes, as is it probably needs the reeds. I think without them and with the jetty positioned differently, it would evoke a stronger response from me, one more like what seems to have been intended from the critique request statement.

I too, would have loved the camera a bit right and also tilted down a bit to avoid the 50/50 horizon. Great idea, though.

I agree, the contrast works but I think the inclusion of the reeds diminished the simplicity that would have resulted from including only the jettey and teh background.

it's busy, but it does work. contrast adj was right on.

I'm seeing too much room on the sides, I like the elements made more prominent by a crop. This looks a little flat to me, especially in the sky, which is nice. sorry to add my own twist, but I couldn't resist.

 

The great tones in the house in front of a dark background are lessened by the lack of contrast. I want to see the tree and house work against and with each other at opposite ends and with opposite tones. Lots of potential with a little bit diffent expression (in my opinion, at least).