The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
Here’s another image from our backpacking trip in February. I find that after a photography outing, where I took a lot of images, there comes a point at which I’ve worked my way through my favorites and am left with images I’m not so sure about; I’m at that point.
Specific Feedback
I’ve included the sidecar jpg so you can see what I was working from. I’d appreciate any thoughts on better crops.
Comparing the version where I’ve removed all the visible earth, what would you recommend for a cut-off on replacement? I’ve been trying to minimize how much “distraction” I clone out of images (trying to embrace the chaos that nature is), but I think that at least those few rocks on the left really need to go.
Any and all suggestions most welcome.
Technical Details
NIKON Z 7II
NIKKOR Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 VR at 200 mm
1/100 sec. at f/16 and ISO 64
Handheld
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
John, You get an A+ in geometry. Looking at the original with the ski slope and sky, I see a pretty ordinary shot. Oh, but you used your excellent seeing skills to realize that the image is really about geometry and angles. Now we have an super effective intimate landscape - wonderful. Great seeing. I think I prefer the version with the black spots on the left simply because when the spots are removed you lost the texture. You can fix the texture using the frequency separation action in the TK9 plugin for Photoshop. Wonderful image! Here are two videos on using frequency separation if you are interested:
Can you clarify what you mean about the texture? Do you mean clone in the snow color but leave the texture of the rocks, or did you mean copy in some of the surrounding lines (the area where the rocks are doesn’t have those lines in the original, but I can certainly add them), or something else?
Thanks for the links regarding Frequency Separation! I had encountered that once before in Alex Nail’s video on sun spot removal, but don’t use it too often. I should play with it more!
Hi John,
Now this image is what I call making wonderful use of some diagonal lines and better yet each section is a different color tone which in turn creates this amazing depth. I hear you on getting to the point about images you are unsure about as I have been there way to many times to even bother counting. IMO this image falls in the keeper category. I am sure you will get differing opinions, but my favorite is the one with the debris removed. I know snow is not pristine, but in my mind I think of it as clean and pristine. I also like the shadow on the left as it looks like a side view of a face with the forehead, nose and mouth. The crop and processing look just fine for my tastes. I hope you have a few more for us.
Outstanding job of pulling out this graphic composition from the larger landscape! Honestly, I think I prefer the first/original posting. I’m not bothered by the “earth”, debri or rock - in fact, it helps provide context and actually at first glance, I had thoughts that this was more desert than mountain snow. Those bits of “debri” actually add more mystery as to the context of location.
I can’t speak for Larry of course, but I think I know what he means. Having those rocks there, if anything, implies texture in the surrounding field. Without the rocks, maybe one doesn’t pay attention to that area and it looks more featureless… But with the rocks, I think the view perceives texture in that area. I could be wrong, but that’s my take on it.
Beautifully seen and processed. The tonal variations are wonderful.
John, seeing what you started with and your vision for the image from start to finish, I think you did a great job. I am all for removing the elements that you did. I wish Larry would come back and explain what he meant with his texture remark cause I’m not quite getting it.
