Drifting Into Autumn

[DigiDiva]

Any comments on this experimental image of mine would be welcome. Thanks.

[littlebro]

Love it Chris, especially the gradient in the light.
BTW put it on the other forum get more comments there.

[DigiDiva]

Thanks LittleBro. There is very little interest on here, I must admit, re critiquing images.

[markgozz]

Really like the composition the colouring and as littlebro has said the light grad works really well , all in all it's a very nice shot .

The only down sides for me is the slightly soft focus but I don't know if that is down to the lens or a tiny bit of camera shake coupled with the 1/20th shutter speed ( did you use a tripod ? ) and the second thing is more of a question about the effect I can see in the water at the bottom of the image , it looks like oil on the surface or something caused by PP work .

I really love this style of minimalistic photography and have been meaning to try out some shots myself so thanks for posting it Chris and giving me a nudge in the side , I need it some times .

Mark

[DigiDiva]

This strange effect on the water wasn't there at first - might hve to go look back at the photoshop version and step back a little. I used a tripod but the water was moving ever so slightly.

Have a go mark, let me see you attempts. I'm hoping to try more like this.

[wavemachine]

I really like this chris, the movement of the water has added a nice dreamy feel, I do think the image could do with being cropped at either the top or the bottom though.

[DigiDiva]

See dave - you do have a comment to make and its very much appreciated.

[JonnyM]

It's a lovely picture DD, tranquil and serene and a different take on the Autumn leaf theme. You could possibly do without the leaves at the top and have the main subject solitary. The main leaf isn't as sharp as it could be unfortunately, and that 'oil on the water' looks like an editing issue called 'posterization'. This may help: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...terization.htm

[DigiDiva]

Thanks JohnnyM

[StephenBatey]

OK Chris, as you started a thread specifically mentioning people not supplying critiques, I'll let you be on the receiving end of one of mine <g>.

I like the overall effect, and the muted colours suit the subject. However...

The bottom half is uniform in tone, and the top isn't. I find the tonal differences in the lighter area particulary catch my eye and lead me away from the main subject. (Especially the darker band that comes in from near the top left).

For a basically diagonal composition, I think it would have been stronger with the upper leaf placed more to the right, to follow the line of the stalk on the lower one.

In nature, nearer objects are usually more brightly coloured and less influencved by haze etc. I therefore find the darker leaf unnatural in this context. Lighter would have been more in keeping.

The white halo around the leaves (particularly to the left of where stem joins leaf) catch my eye far too much.

The shadows may be natural but the angles and positions look unnatural (and I know that often natural looks unnatural, and I can post examples if I had to; but here I'm looking at an image, and to borrow from Magritte, this is not a natural leaf - it's an image of one. I don't think given that photography distorts nature in any case we should slavishly attempt to follow nature when it makes for an inferior image. I know many photographers disagree. And I think that they are wrong <g>).

I don't usually refer to other comments first; I disagree about the sharpness aspect. The parts that matter to me are sharp.