Oasis in Snow

AlexShark

Thank you for your comments.

hstrynrd

I like it for its minimalism. I would maybe crop the bottom third to give it more of a pano landscape look.

AlexShark

hstrynrd wrote: »

I like it for its minimalism. I would maybe crop the bottom third to give it more of a pano landscape look.

Interesting comment, thank you. I am more inclined to crop the top. The vast run-up induces the sense of desolation, while the sky signifies nothing.

JC

AlexShark wrote: »

Interesting comment, thank you. I am more inclined to crop the top. The vast run-up induces the sense of desolation, while the sky signifies nothing.

I agree with cropping the top, just a little bit above the top of the power poles.

I'd also burn in the buildings and trees, or raise the black point to make them 'pop' a little bit more.

It's an interesting image now, with just a little more emphasis, I think it'd be powerful.

boco

heel mooie opname.
zou bij mij in de polder (Noord-Holland) genomen kunnen zijn.
mee eens, om er wat van de onderkant af te halen.
grt,boco.

AlexShark

JC wrote: »

I agree with cropping the top, just a little bit above the top of the power poles.

I'd also burn in the buildings and trees, or raise the black point to make them 'pop' a little bit more.

It's an interesting image now, with just a little more emphasis, I think it'd be powerful.

Hi JC, thank you for the feedback.

A question: why would the pesky "pop" make it more powerful?
The photo is perfectly exposed, all I need to do is delete a couple of layers and it will pop. But... wouldn't it become a perfectly boring photo of practically nothing?

I'm hopeless at landscapes, I don't understand them and don't like them. And don't shoot them. But let us assume for a moment that "Oasis in Snow" is a metaphor -- and not of an object, but of state of being. Emptiness of mind and soul, desolation, being the last person on the planet... The cold is not a weather report, but a personal experience. Then what? Then how do we shoot and process?

The rest can be found here: http://alexbraverman.smugmug.com/Photography/Landscapes-and-Nature/Oasis-in-Snow-1/

puzzledpaul

Certainly appeals to me, fwiw - as I'm not a landscape type either.
Also have difficulty understanding why everything apparently has to 'pop'

pp

roaddog52

I agree, taking a bit off of the top would help. I'm not certain it needs to "pop" but I think bringing the "oasis" up a bit would help it to stand out as the "oasis" as JC notes "emphasize" the "oasis" from the stark surroundings. If any of that makes sense.

I certainly like the concept and the minimalist view.

Phil

Phil

JC

AlexShark wrote: »

A question: why would the pesky "pop" make it more powerful?

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Certainly appeals to me, fwiw - as I'm not a landscape type either.
Also have difficulty understanding why everything apparently has to 'pop'

pp

Why?

Briefly? It's what I'd do(as I said) because of the title.

In depth?

The title implies to me that the emphasis is on the homestead/ranch" the buildings, trees and power, as distinct from the storm. You didn't call it 'lost in the storm' or 'fading away' which would indeed give a different lead in to the picture.
It's a high key image, I get that, but burning the shadows or raising the black point for the buildings and trees would retain the high key, but provide more details for the eyes to see in the homestead, making it 'pop' more out of the landscape and emphasizing the anthropogenic aspect. Even the best sensors/film still struggle to replicate what the eye can see. So, to my mind, and my perception, making it easier to see the homestead as something distinct and standing out from the landscape fulfills the title more, or helps to carry out the perceived intention of the title.

AlexShark wrote: »

Hi JC, thank you for the feedback.

The photo is perfectly exposed, all I need to do is delete a couple of layers and it will pop. But... wouldn't it become a perfectly boring photo of practically nothing?

I don't really know what you mean by deleting layers. IMHO, the most mathematically correct exposure may still leave room for post processing interpretation.

AlexShark

JC wrote: »

I don't really know what you mean by deleting layers. IMHO, the most mathematically correct exposure may still leave room for post processing interpretation.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Technically, i have a number of post processing layers in Photoshop. Some of them are aimed at reducing the "pop," making the scene more of a mirage. All I need to do is delete these adjustment layers and the "pop" will be right back.

i understand where you're heading with it, and I am grateful for your time and interest.

Best,
Alex