- This topic is empty.
Portstewart – weird processing
-
Ok folks, the question is does this weird processing work in the photo below?
If you like, let me know why. If you don’t like, go and….oops, i mean…tell me why :D I’m not sure about it myself, so open to your opinions.
Thanks
SteveSteve,
I like the colours and pattern in the sand. Also like the poles leaning off to one side in the top right and their reflection in the wet sand. unusual.
JohnI like a cross processed look on certain images, but personally, I dont think it works particularly well in landscapes so it’s a ‘yes’ from me I’m afraid.
You have got some fantastic textures and shapes in the foreground sand, so I would certainly like to see it in its more original form?I don’t think it sucks at all Steve. It’s interesting and different. So I’ve said No.
But I agree with Brandyman that you might have a better conventional image in here. Perhaps conventional is just more to my personal tastes but I’ve always felt that straight landscapes work better with believable tones whereas more abstract landscapes can often get away with such processing.
But maybe at 32 years of age I’m a bit of a fuddy duddy.
Andy
amcinroy wrote:
But maybe at 32 years of age I’m a bit of a fuddy duddy.
Andy
32? My word you’re only a boy. Fuddy duddy indeed.
I don’t think it sucks, though I do agree with Ross in that there is some terrific
foreground interest that might not necessarily need such heavy handedness in the
processing department.Rob.
I don’t it sucks I just think it’s different.
I don’t think the shot needs it even though I don’t have to original.I think Byrne5012 has the answer – it’s different. Imagine this hung in the reception area of a hotel – it’ll attract eyes because of it’s composure and it’s drawing power. I like it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
