jetcode wrote in post #16958399
Hello Loxley. This shot reminds me of my very first landscape shots in the mid 90's. Before I understood composition. There really two kinds of images in any genre: literal, and artistic. Sometimes an image is both. In this case we have nice literal of a particular location on earth. Graphically the image is weak. But that's only if we contemplate an artistic interpretation.
So now the critique (OP). Buckle up.
The image has no central subject for the eye to gravitate to. We have a fuzzy foreground leading to a blue sky with some texture but nothing really gripping. The eye wants to lock on something but here we scan and scan. This is a flat landscape in terms of objects. What would add a great deal of interest is something in the sky. Like a pair of hang gliders. Or birds.
The frame is chopped in half. I call this a case of split-itus. It's not your fault. This is what the location looks like.
The sky color is over saturated. Subtlety can produce a more realistic interpretation it can also lead to softer and more diverse palette of colors.
Your last print is the best so far.
Actually, the "split-itus" is his/her fault. Sure, that's what the location looks like. But different framing/composition ALSO would have been what the location looks like. The point is to choose the "what it looks like" that works best.
I also have to clarify that I'm not against centered horizons. I'm just against centered horizons in this particular case. There's more interesting stuff on the ground than there is in the sky. The top portion of the sky has no interesting clouds or anything, it's just blank space. And in this case, including it throws off the balance. That part of the image isn't doing anything, so cut it out. That also places the horizon along the top third, which conforms to the rule of thirds. But the same might not apply for future images.
Anyway, this is a gorgeous scene, but I agree...my biggest complaint is that there's just nothing to grab the eye. No identifiable objects that stand out, no interesting relationship between prominent objects, no interesting relationship between foreground/middleground/ background. It's definitely pretty, but it also seems to not really be about anything. A nice attempt, but I think you should just focus a little bit more on composition and placement of objects.