A little feedback please. I like this image, no manipulation done, just a few tweaks in lightroom with levels to take from colour to black and white. As far as my mind and creativity goes, I've hit a wall. Am i missing something, as for me its not quite there yet, it hasn't got the start contrast I want, but i've played around and hit a wall.
"Striking" photos are usually because of the subject matter, "significance", the lighting, or all of the above.
Think of some of the most "striking" images of fairly recent times.. Let's look at Steve McCurry's
"Afghan Girl". Striking? Yup... what makes it so? Clearly it's subject. The girl is beautiful, and her eyes are very unusual. But it's also got great lighting.. add to that the political significance at the time (and perhaps still) and you have all the ingredients for "striking".
How about Diane Arbus's shot of the little
boy with the grenade, or her shot of the
twin girls. Technically there is NOTHING striking about these images. Lighting is average, composition goes against what most would call "pleasing", yet because of subject matter alone, they are striking, and have both become amongst the most iconic images taken in the 20th century.
OK.. let's break out the big guns.
"Clearing Winter Storm" by Ansel Adams. Perhaps one of the most copied images ever... I think someone on here had a crack at it last week actually. What makes this striking? Sure, Yosemite is beautiful, but I've been at almost that exact spot on a dull overcast day, and to be honest... meh. Here, it's lighting (and also processing). Like most landscapes, so long as there is something interesting in the frame, and the composition is good, it's all about lighting more often than not, and would you look at it!!! He's captured wonderful lighting, and then treated it sympathetically.
This is all just guidance BTW... incidentally, while forum rules say I can't post my own work in a crit thread in a "I'm better than you" way, the fact that this is a harbour, with cranes, makes me think posting one of mine may help.
I'm currently working on a long term project called "Sustainable" which is, as you would imagine, about our obsession with sustainability, and how, in my opinion, it's all a complete waste of time, and merely papering over the cracks... and one shot I took in my mind, is relevant here because it's cranes, in a harbour, with flat, boring lighting on an overcast day... but I think "subject" is what makes it striking... in my opinion.
It all depends on how you define striking. I think this isn't striking as in Ansel Adams striking... This is not a beautiful image... but the weirdness of those cranes intruding in the man made park is striking in the Arbus, weird twins way... it's a subject thing with this shot. It's also significant to the project.
That's my take on striking... It's just an opinion, but usually, and I think most will agree, that striking is usually one of these things... Subject, lighting, significance, or a combo of the above.
Oh... and sometimes colour is a major factor too... never forget colour.
I suspect most will identify most with the "Wow" factor striking... the "Adams" striking... and if that's what you want, then you need the lighting mate... and you just don't have it.
I do feel that if you just lay this bare... don't try for "wow"... keep it plain, drab and show it for what it is... there may be an element of the "Arbus" striking waiting to get out there... that sense of "otherness".
Not sure.. but something in your image made me pay it this much attention, so I wouldn't give up on it yet. I think it has the "otherness" and "Arbus" qualities. The contrast between the idyllic and the disagreeable.
