Views 32 Unique 23
Vote 10
Award Shortlist   
Get Up To 30% Off Regatta Waterproof Jackets


ddolfelin Plus
9 103 3 Wales
18 Apr 2018 3:37AM
Nicely done.
dudler Plus
18 1.7k 1877 England
18 Apr 2018 3:53AM
I'm not sure about this... I like the watercolour look a lot: but - at the size it is on my screen, it took a few seconds to register that it was a painted look, rather than being a fraction blurry. That sort of thing interests me a lot, because of my own interest in special effects lenses of various sorts.

I suspect that the effect will look far better a bit larger, and particularly so in a print.

Is there a fractional tilt down on the left? I often find that when I'm concentrating on a particularly difficult aspect of processing, I miss soem of the basic checks.
18 Apr 2018 8:49AM
Hi Dudler, thanks for your comment.

It raises questions that have been increasingly occurring to me. To what extent must a satisfying photographic image work as a thumbnail? Obviously, if it does, it will attract more views, but is this desideratum actually hampering the development of photography as an art form, especially in these days of high-resolution images and large 'retina' displays? Does 'being sharp' thereby end up as the only criterion for the success of the larger version of the image?

I'd be inclined to look to traditional art - paintings - to supply this answer. I suspect the answer to my first question will be 'yes'. The composition of great paintings is such that it works as a thumbnail, or 'at a distance', as our forefathers used to say, but draws the viewer into the detail as he gets closer.

So I think where this image falls short is in its composition. Also, there's a bit much muddy brown - one wants ones willows to weep romantically over clear blue water - but that might be remedied through PS. I think it is straight, though. There are buildings behind the trees which are upright and the swan looks stable over its leg....


dudler Plus
18 1.7k 1877 England
19 Apr 2018 5:13AM
I think the answer to the question is 'it depends on whether the viewer will look closer' - and often they won't. I was looking at the normal display of hte image, though, and it was that which raised the question. The enlarged view is markedly better.

I wonder if great paintings do necessarily work as thumbnails? Not a question that Leonardo will ever have asked himself, as they didn't exist in his day. The need (if it is a need) is driven by screens and clicks. I'd suspect that Turner, the photographer's painter, would have expected any viewer to spend at least a minute or two looking at his pictures before reaching any conclusions, but he was painting for people who had to walk, and couldn't click away in a fraction of a second.

The straightness? I can't be sure, but the acid test is reflections being precisely below the object, which is hard to check on screen. I think I was looking at what might be called the aggregate of all the trees.

An interesting discussion - thank you for pickign it up!


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.