(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
Sharp foreground to background. Interesting path with plenty to view and enjoy, leading to the field of flowers. My only suggestion would be to eliminate the small grey/blue line separating the wood line path with the field of flowers. As is, it appears as a cement road or path which, for me, stops the smooth transition into the field of flowers and light.
This is a very pleasing image to look at as it is. I’m drawn to “Hudson Valley School” type images lately with images from Bierstadt and his contemporaries. They frequently featured a view to an area of warmer almost Orton effect light. It would be interesting to warm up the light at the end of the path +/- Orton effect to draw the eye. But, as I said I like it as it stands.
This one isn’t working as well for me as most of your others have of late - primarily for technical reasons. It looks like the lighted “end of the tunnel” details are in focus, but DOF has limited what is sharp in the forest; at least from what I can tell in the web version.
And while the diagonal trunk is slender, it still somewhat blocks the visual view and path to the light.
The darker forest and processing seems appropriate for what I “think” you’re trying to say, but I’m not sure.
Some times it’s helpful to provide some additional information. Not always mind you if someone wants is artistic feedback. But for example. I see the lighted vegetation is in decent focus. Did you use a wide aperture just to draw attention there? Or were you intending sharp focus and depth throughout? Did you use a small aperture or focus stack. I’m observing much of the forest is soft in focus (or lack of dof) - but I don’t know if that’s intentional, or not. Hope that all makes sense.
The composition here is quite pleasing. I think you have made the scene works. But, I agree with Lon with regards to the technical aspect to this image. My biggest hurdle is that there is nothing sharp in this image. I am not sure if it is intentional with the processing or something else.
I agree with Lon, I like the composition and the tunnel of trees towards light effect, but the lack of sharpness hurts this image too much. The softness has the feel of a technical problem, rather than something being done for creative effect. If this had been shot as a sharp image originally, and then had a strong Orton Effect added in post for creative effect, I think it would look much different (and better) than the softness we see here.
@ Ed mc Guirk, @Adhika_Lie, @Lon_Overacker, @Craig_Marvil, @Patricia_Brundage. All seen very well, there was a big technical issue (manual focused, F16, -2.33, 70-200 at 200mm ??). But in my eyes the result as I accomplished in photoshop is very pleasing . Just because of the unsharpness and soft look !! I myself liked especially the contrast in the dark and light parts of the image. The question is now, Why is sharpness always so important. To me it’s about making good maybe even pleasing images. If it’s accomplished in camera or in photoshop is not important. Thank you all for your to me important comments( critiques).
In the end an image is always the photographer’s vision of the scene. In many instances I use the soft focus feature in NIK to make it more artistic. Quite frankly on this image I did not view the larger option before commenting. It looked sharp in the small version, but obviously the larger version it clearly was not. If you have ten judges, each will see an image differently and each will have their own point of view. In the end just listen, and if in agreement work on the image, if not, stay with your own version of the scene. There is no right or wrong it is always the artist’s choice.