Hi Andrew! Another NJ posting! We are a creative lot!
I really like the first and third images you have posted. The first has nice color and texture interest. The third has a beautiful diagonal and tones. I bet it would be terrific in black and white.
The second and forth don't really speak to me. Sorry!
My reaction is much like Ruth's to these, Andrew. I particularly like the colours and patterns in the first, possibly my favourite image of yours so far.
The second would have a similar appeal as the two we prefer, but for the obviously very deliberate addition of that garish leg.
While I generally prefer subtlety to in-your-face images, the fourth comes across as a bit bland, subjectively lacking in textural detail, interesting tonal contrasts, or colour nuances for me. These could be brought out in processing possibly.
I suspect you do minimal processing as a conscious choice.
The original title of the "Details" series was, "Details Underfoot." So, the occasional feet that found their way into the images was a sort of artistic pun meant to be slightly offputting. They force an acknowledgment of context. They also give some indication of how much processing actually went into the image. Because we know what that leg should look like, you can see that the image's saturation has been seriously adjusted. Admittedly, this only works if you're in on the joke and then only a few times. As my daughter likes to say (today is her birthday), "Dad, you only think you're funny."
I've considered going back to the original JPEG as it came from the camera and masking the leg so it was more normal looking while still bringing up the water/sand.
Hi Andrew! Another NJ posting! We are a creative lot!
I really like the first and third images you have posted. The first has nice color and texture interest. The third has a beautiful diagonal and tones. I bet it would be terrific in black and white.
The second and forth don't really speak to me. Sorry!
:)
My reaction is much like Ruth's to these, Andrew. I particularly like the colours and patterns in the first, possibly my favourite image of yours so far.
The second would have a similar appeal as the two we prefer, but for the obviously very deliberate addition of that garish leg.
While I generally prefer subtlety to in-your-face images, the fourth comes across as a bit bland, subjectively lacking in textural detail, interesting tonal contrasts, or colour nuances for me. These could be brought out in processing possibly.
I suspect you do minimal processing as a conscious choice.
The original title of the "Details" series was, "Details Underfoot." So, the occasional feet that found their way into the images was a sort of artistic pun meant to be slightly offputting. They force an acknowledgment of context. They also give some indication of how much processing actually went into the image. Because we know what that leg should look like, you can see that the image's saturation has been seriously adjusted. Admittedly, this only works if you're in on the joke and then only a few times. As my daughter likes to say (today is her birthday), "Dad, you only think you're funny."
I've considered going back to the original JPEG as it came from the camera and masking the leg so it was more normal looking while still bringing up the water/sand.