Fog on the Meadow

[ibclare]

Here is something I did for fun. Haven't been doing much of that lately.

The main model isn't as high resolution as I usually work, but I liked the image so I used it. The hay background was a higher resolution and is a beautiful photo.

I look forward to comments and critiques.

These are all from deviantarts.com.




background
hay_by_guardianmajor-d7nrrlo


standing mode
only_echoes_in_the_melody_by_goosiegoo-d4bk5b2


stooping model
amanita__april_2009__3__by_inritius_alliance-d4h1457


wagon wheel
wagon_wheel_one_by_emochick91


horses
horses_in_the_wild_by_lailalta-d323nmb

 

[Hoogle]

I know I am not normally 1 for critique but after being let down as I read it as a Frog on the meadow and was half hoping to see a lizard and a frog hanging out lol.

so as I am here I like the natural composition however 3 things strike out to me which others probably wont agree with.
Fog or Smoke. When I see fog i picture it being denser nearer the ground and lighter as it rises but then I guess there is no real correct way as it deends on the currents and temp.

The fence running straight through the picture appears to only be ankle high and that perspective also carries on with your 2nd subject red riding hood.

And lastly the light appears to be coming from the wrong direction on your main subject but yet that could be a trick on the eyes it appears to be coming left to right where as all the shadows state it is left to right. but I cant really say that as it appears to be ambient lighting and not direct and it could be just her clothes making the illusion I am seeing.

But apart from that The hills are alive with the sound of music

 

[ibclare]

I think the fence is lower in the forefront but then you can see by the horse, it is three horizontal posts high. Handmade stuff.

As for the fog, well, OK, I see your point. Maybe shouldn't havebeen any in the foreground.

As for the lighting on the front model, I think the shadow on the skirt throws it off, now that you mention it - as the light is right to left. Most of her is lit correctly, but that is a bit confusing. I don't know if I will correct that or not. It feels finished, but you never know. If it were a serious manipulation, of course I would go back in and work it again.

Thanks for the like and the critique. I appreciate that.

 

[ibclare]

I just realized that I forgot to post the original background. It is such a beautiful photo, I wasn't sure if I should even try to use it, but it inspired me.

 

[ibclare]

I changed the lighting on the skirt, but kept the fog as is. The way I see it, is that is is the least on the foreground, the model, the first couple haystacks, the closest grass and flowers, and the rest is over the middle ground. Perhaps it would have been better to make the distant fog permeate the ground area more. But it is one of those ambiguous fog layers, lol.

 

[Tom Mann]

I just realized that I forgot to post the original background. It is such a beautiful photo, I wasn't sure if I should even try to use it, but it inspired me. ...snip...

I guess I would have phrased it, "It is such a beautiful image, ..." because I have never seen a photo come out of a camera looking quite like this one does - no matter what lens was used. To me, a main part of the attraction is that it seems he intentionally changed the photo to look like it was done by one of the New England primitive artists.

T

 

[MrToM]

Artistically this isn't bad, but I think there are a few technical issues that are spoiling it.

For me, its the scale of the added elements which is the major problem.



The photo looks like it was taken from much higher than your average person, which gives some indication of scale, although its difficult to tell as there isn't really much to base a scale on.

About the only thing you could really take a guess at is probably the height of the fence....by the horse...so lets start there.

A height of 4 foot for a fence of that nature is not unreasonable, so lets assume the fence is 4' high.
This then means that Mister Ed there could very easily just step over it, (see image), and on the same scale he would be around 12' high.....that's 36 hands! (WR is around 20 hands).

You can then compare Mister Ed to the nearest hay-stack, which is about the same height so 12', again, that doesn't sound unreasonable for a hay-stack. The hay-stacks all look of a similar height judging by perspective so lets assume they are and look at the woman on the right.

She's about the same height as a hay-stack too, but she is crouched down so if she's 12' high when crouched down that would make her....well, really really big. I'd have made her much smaller, possibly even smaller than I did in my example.

With that in mind this now makes the woman in the foreground appear to 'float' way above ground level, even though you cannot see the ground. At the distance she is from the camera I doubt if she would even be tall enough to be in shot......unless she had her 'heels' on of course.

The other thing that throws this is the shadow angles....the red and blue lines in my image. Ideally the shadows should all follow the blue angle, give or take.

Sorry if that sounds a little harsh but its little things like this that really do detract from the overall composition....which is a shame.

Regards.
MrTom.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi MrTom - As you are relatively new here, you probably don't realize just how odd is is for me not to side with a good technical analysis. And, I should point out that seeing such scale and perspective problems is exactly what triggered my earlier comment about primitive art ...

BUT, I've got to point out that the psychological impact of the work (ie, including factors such as cognitive dissonance arising from "technical problems") is often precisely what makes a piece of art appealing and worthy of the wide critical acclaim. To belabor the obvious, try applying such geometric analyses to Dali's "Persistence of Memory", or these: 1, 2, 3 , LOL.

I'm about as literal a guy as you'll ever meet, and tend to apply a National Geo or newsroom level of representational accuracy to my own photography, but I've got to say that I really like the geometry of Clair's piece. I especially like the impression it gives that the woman is floating. The diagonals of her arms and in the folds of her dress echo the SW-NE diagonals in the (odd) arrangement of the haystacks, and this gives me a strong feeling of implied movement.

I don't want to speak for her, but I think I can say with nearly 100% accuracy that Clair never intended this piece to have accurate geometry. She has a strong art background (...painting, as I recall), and if she wanted it to be laid out like isometric projection in an assembly drawing intended for a machine shop, or 1400's era buildings in Italy (eg, 1, 2http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...alled-canaletto-the-molo-5701805-details.aspx) , she could have easily done so.

Just my $0.02,

Cheers,

Tom M

 

[chrisdesign]

Thank you Hoogle, Mr. Tom and Tom Mann for your critiques on Clare's composite. I always learn a lot about people's different views of a "photo manipulation."

For Clares image here I personally think her work originates clearly from her emotional side and she trust her gut feeling. I would call it "freedom of the artist".

 

[ibclare]

Thanks everybody. I thought I posted a reply to this but it got lost. Hmmm. I appreciate all the feedback.

Yes, it is an emotionally charged image for me. I liked the bg photo and didn't know if I really wanted to screw it up but decided to try anyway. The proportions and perspective were difficult, but I just said to myself, self, screw it. So I enjoyed doing it. If it were a serious manipulation, I would have spent a few days rather than a number of hours on it.

Thanks again for all the thoughts. I have filed them away, and if I ever choose to do another one like this, I will try to pick simpler components that might work better to together.