This is a picture taken during a trip to Switzerland in 2002 which I like. Would appreciate your critique and comments to improve the picture.
Rev said:Student... I beg to differ.. Every photograph has something interesting to offer. It just occurred to me that in the case of mpenza's photo, I'll bet that size is a factor here. If he were to post this pic at 1600x1200, all the details can be seen and the expansiveness of the lake & cityscape gives more impact, then this would make an interesting misty foto. pity abt the lack of color tho.
sorry for not mentioning this earlier mpenz... this is probably why U like this pic...
cool... interesting approach. However, for those 'small' (or enlarged) michael kenna images to work, they are mostly shot with telephoto rite? And Mpenza did his shot with WA...... so that means U're talkin abt the mood? I'm relatively a n00b to photography, would also like to learn =)student said:It is OK to differ. I can only comment on what I see on the screen. Michael Kenna's images are usually very small even in "real life" about 8x8 inches. Of course on screen they are even smaller and less resolution. But the richness of his images on screen are still there.
You hit it right on the head of the nail. The key thing of this picture is what it means for you. In this case, memories and feelings of the place.mpenza said:no problem. I appreciate all the comments. This is a pic I like, might be mainly because I was there and it brings back memories and feelings about the place in general. However, as a travel pic, I don't think it is good but I wasn't able to pinpoint the issues with it.
mpenza said:no problem. I appreciate all the comments. This is a pic I like, might be mainly because I was there and it brings back memories and feelings about the place in general. However, as a travel pic, I don't think it is good but I wasn't able to pinpoint the issues with it.
student said:In the thread started by Zaren, I made a point why sometimes an image may not generate much interest.
It may not be that it was "bad" etc. It may be well exposed, and composition OK. But it is just, well, OK..........
I hope you get what I mean. Like this one. It is so dull, although I cannot fault the exposure. I understand that you are using the swans to add interest to the foreground, but my eyes were distracted by the lone swan on the extreme left. The sky is so uninteresting, the buidlings not saying anything.
Yes, it is misty, it is moody, but so boring!
See the works of Michael Kenna. Misty, moody, but so alive!
Rev said:heh, this critique forum is more like info sharing for the poster & the critics..
student: so kenna shoots in medium format because of less-noise when printing. but mpenza's foto & kenna's fotos are clearly composed differently because of the different choice of perspective; mpenza's was WA, kenna's is very focused (looks like telephoto) as if he took a section of what his eye saw. here's 1 example of kenna's landscape with buildings. I went thru kenna's site and most of the fotos don't show expansive landscape stuff like this example from ansel.
So, I'm still confused & i'm interpreting from yr post that using telephoto or WA lens in medium format to photograph landscape has no difference when the picture is shown in a small size?