[skipper954]

I think that I submitted this previously in a very small size.

However I am interested in what you think.

This is a view of the Grand Teton mountain range from the Snake river, in Wyoming.

I generally do not like centered objects of focus, but I think that it works here.

skip

[danpen]

I'm not entirely sure about the centred composition, have you tried cropping a bit from the left hand side?

I do like the way the haze makes the mountains look so distant. It almost looks unreal, I suspect because I'm used to seeing objects in a photo that go from close to far away and here you have quite close, very far away and nothing in between, it give it some impact.

Nice shot.

[Markulous]

Don't mind the centred comp but think it needs a little more contrast and less water:



Small CCW rotate, crop, Grad sky, dodge the trees on RHS (as very dark), burn clouds and mountain a little

[cotter]

I think I have commented on this picture before. I do like it, but I feel Mark has brought it to life.

This is the type of subject my Dad loves to oil paint. He will love it

With your permission he could paint it and I could post a picture of the painting.

[Rob Barron]

I don't feel like I want the mountains darkened at all as the paler version pushes them further back. But they do need a touch more contrast, especially around the snowy peak areas where it is hard to see where the mountain stops and the cloud begins. For me, I don't mind the central composition but I do feel the thing missing is something in the FG. We have BG of mountains and mid-ground of trees but the FG has nothing to grab my attention at all, just the water. Don't get me wrong, I entirely know that if there is nothing there you can't just conjure something up, just the way it goes sometimes.

Anyway, it's got bits I like and bits that are a bit average, nothing I dislike though as such.

Cheers,
Rob

[skipper954]

In my defense

The mountain was really hazy in the original, and I "popped" it a bit, but I didn't want to pop it too much because then I thought that it was unrealistic. However, I do like Mark's definition between the mount and the clouds.

I really like the Snake and the way it sort of leads the eye to the mount, so I disagree with Rob on that point. The contrast between the serene river and the rest of the active shot, I think, is worth it.

skip

[Rob Barron]

Am I looking at the same picture? What Snake? I assume you mean the water snaking off into the distance or something but it isn't doing that in the picture I am seeing. I can see a very thin but at the top of the water where it goes round the corner a touch but not strong enough to lead my eye there.

I guess as you were there, you probably went on the boat around that bend and so forth and maybe your minds eye is seeing what you know is there rather than what the photo is actually showing? I mean that quite seriously, i have taken ictures like that before and realised later that the picture wasn't showing as much of the place as I was seing because I was mentally adding in what I knew to be around the picture.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Rob

[Rob Barron]

PS< I do realise that the river is called the Snake but I am referring to the comment about the snaking leading the eye through the picture :o)

Just thought I'd make that clear!

[skipper954]

Granted, the bend in the river is only a hint, maybe just a bit more than implied.

But that plus the narrowing of the river before the bend does, I think, lead the eye to the mountain. Sometimes what isn't in the image is as important as what is. The viewer has to fill in.

Perhaps much like the rests, or silences in a musical composition. They are part and parcel of it.

skip

[Sonsey]

I think Markulous's take on this shot has really lifted it nicely, the water does lead me in a little, perhaps not as much as you Skip, but a bit more than you Rob

However, I think the mountain might look better somewhere inbetween Markulous's take and the original.

Nice shot

[Rob Barron]

LOL, well, you can't take the mountain to mohammed but taking it to Markulous's take could be a first <g>