Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by bmatt17:
After reading your notes I see what you saw with the "monster". That said to me the image has too much featureless blue to it. The first outtake picture you listed though I Really like. Maybe if the monster was lower in the image it would draw more attention to it. Maybe cropped right above the foreground bush.

SSOC_0826-Edit2.jpg
by ikopanas

Comment by tnun:
No question. This renders the feel of the still water and the way the mountains settle down and hug the horizon; clumps of grass give a human scale and temper the great evenness. In other words, this lets what is there be there. Your submission is like a man or a woman overly decked out and perfumed, on the make; on the one hand it is a turn on when someone makes all that effort - on the other hand it may be difficult to know what that person is really like.

SSOC_0826-Edit2.jpg
by ikopanas

Comment by Paul:
I think this is better in every way to your actual submission. A slightly increase in contrast would serve it well but this probably got a 5 or even a 6 from me - better than the 4 I gave for your submission.

Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by zeuszen:
A quiet, static scape with good complimenting colours. As it is, an empty blue sky consumes nearly half of the image; gradating it along with the foreground water, as you did, has improved the givens considerably.

Still, the horizon lies too close to the horizontal centre for a dynamic composition, especially since the (opposite) shore drops it even lower. As others have observed, the frontmost shrub has more attention than an incidental obstruction should have, attention the small tufts of sedge in the water critically need.

I think the inclusion of an interesting foreground object is critical for such an expansive, cloudless setting. There is no bird either, no moon to extend the view beyond the horizon and back, in the form of a reflection, onto the water.

For these reasons, I much prefer your outtake, the higher horizon, even the subdued colours and contrast , which render the light less harsh and leave us a moodier maritime scene.
The symbolism of mountain-fish swallowing another is, IMO, delicately reserved for those who find enough pleasure here to linger for a while.

Message edited by author 2009-12-01 11:40:31.

SSOC_0826-Edit2.jpg
by ikopanas

Comment by zeuszen:
A quiet, static scape with good complimenting colours. As it is, an empty blue sky consumes nearly half of the image; gradating it along with the foreground water, as you did, has improved the givens considerably.

Still, the horizon lies too close to the horizontal centre for a dynamic composition, especially since the (opposite) shore drops it even lower. As others have observed, the frontmost shrub has more attention than an incidental obstruction should have, attention the small tufts of sedge in the water critically need.

I think the inclusion of an interesting foreground object is critical for such an expansive, cloudless setting. There is no bird either, no moon to extend the view beyond the horizon and back, in the form of a reflection, onto the water.

For these reasons, I much prefer your outtake, the higher horizon, even the subdued colours and contrast , which render the light less harsh and leave us a moodier maritime scene.
The symbolism of one mountain-fish swallowing another is, IMO, delicately reserved to those who find enough pleasure here to linger for a while.

Message edited by author 2009-11-30 16:18:58.

Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by Paul:
Responding to your request for comments. I gave you a 4; I'll try and explain why:

Firstly, I certainly didn't see the 'eating' I do now but for me interesting landscape doesn't necessarily make for an interesting image and given the mountains are your primary focal interest point, I think they aren't really interesting enough to make up for a lack of photographic interest.

I do like the sky and the water - especially the gradated colour but the pureness of the water is ruined by the messy foreground and it may just be the light but the saturation of the foreground bush seems uncomfortably high.

Compositionally, I think landscapes need to communicate some depth and leading lines going 'into' the image really help - I don't see any here.

Trying to including a foreground element with a background at this distance was always going to give you some focus difficulties - I haven't really got my head around the whole hyperfocal thing but I'm pretty sure you've made things difficult for yourself here.

I hope this helps

Paul

Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by ThingFish:
Very nice composition with lovely clarity, reflections and colors. 10

Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by salmiakki:
Gorgeous, although I hate even to say this but the tree/bush is somewhat disturbing me. I know foreground interest is good and all that, but in this case it's not working for me. Still a beautiful image. The nitpicky stuff comes from spending too much time on DPC! 7

Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by Coley:
Great reflection lovely details

Loch Ness Monster?
by ikopanas

Comment by vipantonio:
very nice