|
|
|
Koen B
{K:3279} 6/11/2002
|
Personally I think that if you want to confront the beauty of the landscape with decay, it might be better to get a more interesting balance between the two. I feel that the trash is just there because it happened to lie there, not because you want to evoke a confrontation. It is a good concept, however.
|
|
|
|
|
Jonas Hägglund
{K:35} 6/10/2002
|
Hi Paul, first of all I would like to thank you for taking time to think over my photograph, however. Cropping down the picture removes the thoughts I wanted to raise with the photo, not only beeing a beautiful Swedish landscape but also showing the decline of the old times. But I can see how you miss that if you are?nt able to see the old farm equiptment, in the foreground.
Also placing the equiptment in the foreground brings some depth into the photo.
Regarding your idea to light the farmhouse in PS is out of the question. I don?t like that kind of image manipulation at all. Cropping and dust removing is somewhat ok..
Look at my Swedish Countryside 2, and see if you like that one better..
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Auen
{K:186} 6/10/2002
|
I'm going to blame my monitor first. The foreground of the image is in deep shadow and is almost completely lost as I view the image. The front of the building also has lost most of its detail to the shadows. Obviously other viewers can tell that there is something in those shadows, thus my reason for blaming my monitor.
So with that in mind, here are my comments. The dark foreground takes up too much valuable real-estate for this image. I would crop out the bottom of this image so that there is just a bit of shadow to frame the picture. I would then have to decide if the open field on the right is a critical part of the image. Does it add to the subject of the image?
Next I would move the sun towards me to get some texture on the front of the barn. Well, I guess I can't really do that. So, lightening the barn in PS would help.
I have taken the liberty to make the cropping and lightening modifications and attached the resulting image to this comment. I apologize if this conduct is out of line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonas Hägglund
{K:35} 6/9/2002
|
Thanks Dawna and Matt.
I agree with you, maybe if i would have taken a couple of steps to my right to separate the house from the machinery?!
I do have a picture with just the house, maybe I?ll upload it as soon as a awake, because right now I?m going to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Oulman
{K:1052} 6/9/2002
|
I agree with Dawna here. Would have been better without the machinery. Maybe a large forground foliage of some sort?
Nice feeling to it tho...I like it very much.
|
|
|
|
|
Dawna G.
{K:7709} 6/9/2002
|
Nice image Jonas but I think that the foreground object is competing a little too much with the main subject (I am asuming that your main subject is the building however) Perhaps an angle where just some of the flowers are in the foreground would work better. I have been experimenting alot with these kinds of shots and I know how hard it is to fit machinary like this in the picture.
|
|
0 
