(If this is a composite, etc. please be honest with your techniques to help others learn)
To be totally honest, John, this is just not working for me mainly the processing. The colors are weird looking and the sky needs a lot more work if you like this vision and want to go forward with it. There are a lot of dust spots, there is a ghost image of the top of the light, a strange horizontal white section across from it, noisy patches in the sky and quite a few strange looking ufo orb things.
I have to agree with @Michael_Lowe on this one. When I first saw the thumbnail, it didn’t look right for some reason. Then I opened it, then I looked a the larger version. The added sun and fog don’t fit, nor do the colors. Even the foreground rocks feel significantly over saturated. Sorry, this one isn’t working.
John,
I hate to pile on, but I have to agree with my brother @Michael_Lowe and @Keith_Bauer on this image for all the reasons they mentioned. Maybe this would work better as a B&W after cleaning up the sky a little.
Nice image with seemingly a strange filter over it.
Thanks for the comments, guys. I agree with the over saturation of the rocks , however, there is a yellow/orange rock color as depicted in my photo and there is often early morning fog seeping here and there. Sorry guys. . . I like it.
Hi John!
I’m not going to add to the points that have already been made about your image, but I do agree with what the others have pointed out. While you may like your image from an artistic standpoint, and that is your choice, I would definitely consider some of the technical elements they presented especially with regards to the orbs in the sky, haloing, processing artefacts etc. They are really noticeable and would detract from any image.
If you were up for doing it, I would maybe suggest posting a version of the image that is close to what you captured in camera. That way people may be able to help/suggest ways to realise the vision you had that morning you took the shot. Maybe you will end up with something you prefer. There are some very talented people on here, who with combined suggestions, could help with the image.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned has to due with the pink in the sky in the center. If you look at the white building on the left it’s half white and half pink. The same is true in the white areas of the red building. The processing done to the sky has overlapped on to the buildings. I would correct that so that the buildings have a uniform color.
The colors are pretty strong for a fog landscape but I feel that’s open to your artistic discretion. It doesn’t have to look realistic if that’s not your intention.
John if you’re happy with the image, that’s all that matters. I think our main concerns were not with your artistic vision, but with the processing of the photo as @Eugene_Theron states.
You may have noticed, John, when you post in the critique section that there are two questions on the board: 1) What technical feedback would you like, if any? and 2) What artistic feedback would you like, if any? I noticed in your original post that you didn’t respond to either of those questions , which leads me to believe that you may not actually be looking for a critique. About your image, you yourself said, “… I like it.” And that’s great. That you like what you’ve created is a terrific feeling. What I would suggest, therefore, is that there is an alternative place to post your images - the Showcase area. The Showcase area is precisely for posting images that you like and don’t particularly want a critique except what viewers may like about the image. But it seems to me that if you, or anyone, decides to post in the critique section, then we have a responsibility to at least carefully consider what is being offered. After all, those that have offered the critique have taken time not only to look at the image posted but write a constructive response. That being said, I’m delighted to hear that you love your photograph. There’s no better feeling than that.
He has said ‘any’ to both tech and artistic feedback in his op. It’s just in the same big text as the header.
Ah, my mistake then and my apology for the misunderstanding.
