Ossi,
Now that Ken has entered his own entirely effective critique, I will offer mine. He might want the dog to walk into the frame, I'd want to take control of that with a wider shot. He might want to approach closer, I'd change by angle to exclude what was not needed. I didn't wish to open discussion in a way that might extinguish comments that refer to the success of the picture. I like the subject and the framing is pleasing.
In some way, it seemed to me that you might be taking Norman Rockwell's "lantern" to have us look away from the streets and homes and farms to the coast, but with some inversion of respect for the folks featured. I imagined that you were making some fun of the men staring pointlessly at nothing. I like it when a photographer finds a distinct perspective and then hones this view with a series of well-conceived and made images following up on this motif. So I am impressed as my first impression was positive and that's where I start!
Then I saw that 2 birds on the top of the lamppost, I wondered why they, who could see better than anyone, were sacrificed in the harsh processing of the photography file. As Ken points out, the sky is giving such great importance as a subject, and it overwhelms anything else.
The dog in the lower right hand corner could be a counterpoint of brilliance. We'd like it to have understood his thoughts, "Look how pointless the sky watchers are!". The eyes are not bright and his jaw is cut off, that makes the dog a more or less trivial addition and unable to speak, so to speak.
So, with your forbearance, allow me to use your photograph as an example around which to offer two pleas which might allow such novel ideas to survive to the final delivered image. This is not a formula, but an approach based on what I believe the masters did in their own darkrooms. Of course, I may miss the point of your shared photograph, but for sake of my argument, let's imagine that I have sufficient comprehension to serve as a quasi-model for a well intended and equipped viewer.
I'll now repeat, then, 2 take-home thoughts for consideration, (that I admit I've harangued about time and again!). These are
- Shoot wider (unless you are a pro doing what you know you can do well each time)
- Only make changes where they are absolutely needed, hardly ever globally.
If we don't measure out changes as each part of the image demands we take great risks. Worse, levanthian alterations, can wipe out much of the esthetic experience we hope to present. Los potential is tragic! That's what I'm hoping we can prevent.
Asher
