Back Modifications (3)
Views 78 Unique 42 Award Shortlist   
Get 70% Off Franzis Cutout 8 Pro Background Editor Software

Comments


tonyguitar Plus
8 77 37 Canada
3 Jun 2017 6:06AM
HDR in mono-sepia? No matter, as this is a fine art-work. TG

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

pablophotographer 8 1.5k 368
3 Jun 2017 8:58PM
Ditto.
What would I have changed? Nothing apart the electric cables which can go.... straight back to the future.
pablophotographer
dudler Plus
16 1.1k 1598 England
4 Jun 2017 2:44PM
You've given us extensive tags about the subject, but not a lot about the processing, or what you wanted from the shot.

I'm thinking Nik Efex filters, or similar, and that's great: appropriate for the subject.

Compositionally, flat-on and formal is fine: I would want to play with options like having hte path-edge go into the bottom corner on the left, or including all of hte tree on the left. Essentially, these are details, and simply choices.

Two thoughts. First, I'd like to see the unprocessed version, in case there are parts of the route to the final image that could be different - maybe simpler?

As Pablo suggests, the power lines would be better gone (and this will be easier to do before the monochrome/grain treatment).

And one thing where I'd suggest that a change would make the picture better. There's a halo round the church and trees, and a grittiness to the whole image that is slightly offputting to my eye. I think that you have sharpened a lot at some stage, possibly with one of the options in the Nik filter. A less edgy and harsh treatment would leave a more relaxed feel - as it stands, the grittiness draws attention to itself, and away from the subject - so the question is, perhaps, do you want a picture that says 'Look how PROCESSED I am!' or one that says 'Look at this lovely scene, and appreciate it as a retro image...'

Your choice: is it about sharing your experience of a characterful place, or sharing your processing?
pamelajean Plus
14 1.3k 2116 United Kingdom
4 Jun 2017 5:30PM
I feel that there is a very nice image behind the processing, Andrew.
This is only my opinion, but I feel that you are asking us to critique the work you have done, not the image itself.
I, too, would like to see the original.
However, if you're happy with the result that you have here, there's no reason for us to be trying to do a modification based upon your original.

It would be helplful if you used your Description Box to tell us what you want in the way of critique.
Also, when you have done a lot of work on an image, it would be helpful if you could upload the original as a modification.

You have included the words "peaceful" and "peace" in your tags, but that's not the feeling that this is giving me. In fact, the clouds look ominous and somewhat grim and spooky.

Pamela.
banehawi Plus
15 2.2k 4093 Canada
4 Jun 2017 9:19PM
Looking at the processing mainly, and the image.

The Chapel is not square horizontally, meaning the camera was not parallel with the Chapel, fixable in Lens correction.

For me, much too harsh and edgy, overly sharp; halos around the trees detract. Then the wires.

I would go for a sifter look, the result is mod2. Mod1 is after lens correction and before sharpening, which I had forgotten to do.


Regards


Willie
paulbroad 12 131 1288 United Kingdom
6 Jun 2017 6:09PM
I normally have serious problems with HDR images or that effect when they are this strong. I don't like your border, a bit pointless, but I actually quite like your end product. Things are not natural, but the visual effect is strong and demanding - surely thus eye catching and rather stronger than many shots we see.

An image hat makes you look and think surely must be credited with a certain degree of success. The tones remind me of a darkroom print from a contrast negative on Agfa Portriga rapid paper which gave tones close to this.

Paul

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.