jefzor wrote in post #16821394
First of all, they all look good to me, so I'm kind of nitpicking here.
I don't know if you need the nearby rocks in the first one. I wonder what it would look like in a horizontal version.
In the 2nd one, I think a longer focal length would have worked better. Now you have too much road and too little mountain imho. Maybe you should brighten up the road a bit in post.
Maybe the bottom right corner looks a bit to open/empty in the 3rd on, might have looked better if you still saw some more high ground. Also, the waterfall on the right is cut off by the frame edge.
1) I like the IDEA of the nearby rocks, but I'm doubtful that it works from a compositional standpoint. The placement of the nearby rocks just seems too random and scattered to me, and doesn't really contribute to the overall design.
2) I'm actually fine with the huge expanse of road. In CONCEPT at least, though again there may be a question of execution. To me, one of the primary things that this image is about is about the contrast between where the viewer is and where the viewer is going. We're here, the goal is way over there, and we have a LONG way to go to get there. The long stretch of road exaggerates the sense of separation. The image would probably technically be "better" with a longer lens and less road, but I feel sort of weird about that. I suspect that doing so would also have the potential to fundamentally change what the image SAYS. So I guess it becomes a question of priorities. How important is the statement in comparison to the quality? Is it okay to make changes that result in a "better" photograph if that also completely changes the meaning of the photograph? I guess it depends on the image and how it's to be used, I'm just saying that it's something to consider.
3) Also looks good, but the overall design doesn't seem well formed.