Critique St. Helena

cant quite put my finger on it but though i like them and great location they lack a certain punch.
the sky is great but the ground area is a little to flat in colour and light and a tiny bit washed out. Obviously its pretty much just greenery there so not like you can have some nice vivid red or yellow flowers to break things up but i would say there needs to be a touch more contrast.
maybe if taken at a different time of day ( sunrise/sunset ) would really make them pop out.
almost but not quites for me, think they just need a little tweak and lift to really bring them out.
 
cant quite put my finger on it but though i like them and great location they lack a certain punch.
the sky is great but the ground area is a little to flat in colour and light and a tiny bit washed out. Obviously its pretty much just greenery there so not like you can have some nice vivid red or yellow flowers to break things up but i would say there needs to be a touch more contrast.
maybe if taken at a different time of day ( sunrise/sunset ) would really make them pop out.
almost but not quites for me, think they just need a little tweak and lift to really bring them out.
Cheers for the feedback Dean. I had the same feeling myself to an extent. I'd desaturated them and pumped up the vibrance to compensate. Think I might have overdone the desaturation. Have edited and reuploaded into the original post. Less saturation but a little added clarity. What'd ya think?
 
not sure what you can do with number 3 as the background hills look a little lost and flat in comparison to the front hill.
number 2 works better now. you can see the sunlight and shadows on the pathway, grass and hills which gives it some dimension. number 1.. not to many shadows to be seen but it stands out a bit more now.. though i have just noticed if you look at the main group of trees on the right side of the shot they are all leaning to the right which points to the level being off a fraction.
many people might not notice it but ive been on a selling site where even a 0.01 degree deviance seems to bring down the wrath of other members screaming. "wonky horizon wonky horizon! "

i actually think for number 1 i would crop off the bottom 1/3rd and about 1/5th of the sky turn it into a 16:9 format but thats just personal preference.
 
though i have just noticed if you look at the main group of trees on the right side of the shot they are all leaning to the right which points to the level being off a fraction.
many people might not notice it but ive been on a selling site where even a 0.01 degree deviance seems to bring down the wrath of other members screaming. "wonky horizon wonky horizon! "

The horizon is level. The trees are leaning. You might also notice that the majority of foliage is on the leeward side of the trees. There's little variation in the direction of the wind on the island. Trade winds and all that. It sculpts the trees into quite awesome shapes...

P7120115-Edit by ajday, on Flickr

P7120166-Edit by ajday, on Flickr

Am purposefully trying to avoid picture-postcard over saturation. Guess I still have some work to do.
 
Back
Top