|
|
Kevin H
{K:22502} 2/18/2006
|
I know what you mean when it is worth it to drive for hours to get the right shot. This is one of them, with a great sky and well saturated colors. I find the picture with the foreground is nicer for the simple reason it gives you more sence of distance. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Engström
{K:24473} 12/9/2005
|
I'm with John - "attitude" is a good way of putting it. Big sky is great and this one has an interesting ground/Ged to go with it - I like the darker tones there. The scale is great - those little white things are seed silos, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Dirck DuFlon
{K:35779} 12/8/2005
|
I really do like them both, Becky, but if pressed I'd have to say the main post above has more impact! The second version is really pretty, and the russet color of the foreground weeds is lovely, but overall it has a more static feel, maybe because of the very balance that the foreground brings to it. I like the crispness of the first image, all blues and greens except where the sun has broken through on the field... Plus I love the 'weight' you've given the sky!
|
|
|
|
John Bohner
{K:8368} 12/7/2005
|
I like the original post. The second is just another pretty picture of a pretty place. The first one though, that has attitude that says look at me! The sense of space is much nicer than seeing red weeds in the forground. They also diminish the scale of the distant objects and reduce the pic to foreground and oh yeah some sky.
Go with your instincts. - John B
|
|
|
|
Pooriya Zarrabi
{K:3836} 12/7/2005
|
beautiful shot and nice sky. but I like secound shot...
|
|
|
|
|
Becky V
{K:9699} 12/7/2005
|
By the way, here's the same shot, but with some foreground. I really like the extra splash of colour, but I don't feel the photo has the same impact as the one above. Which do you prefer and why?
|
|
|
0 
