I love the picture! The vision is amazing: it takes an already stunning piece of architecture and makes it even more attractive.
However, I feel that blurring the sky and water but not any part of the bridge is somewhat disorienting--it looks unnatural. I'll repeat a suggestion from another critique--blur the furthest part as well to create a sense of depth. Alternately, you could crop out the furthest part completely; the drastic change of depth works well on the right and leads the eye, but near the end, as the curve becomes more gradual, one loses interest. The end doesn't need nearly as much emphasis as the beginning.
I'm not sure what was in the sky at the time of the picture, but if there was any definition at all--even a few patterns in the clouds--it might complement the picture a little better. (Of course, if it was completely overcast, the way it's blurred is probably the best choice.)
I might be overly critical, but then again, this is a critique.
Beautiful idea and good photo! Nice composition. Vision: beautiful (road in the skyes) Originality: of current interest Technique: needs commenting Impact: lowered by technique
Blured water erases feeling of depth which this photo meant to give i guess. Clouds reflected in water wasn't "motionblurred" Well, you can expand selection of clouds, blur it, make a copy of blured clouds layer and move it so the dam's arches will croos blurred skies and there will be no white areas up on the arch. What is near to the watcher must be sharp. You can blur the futherst part of the archtecture, forest and water, but not the closest parts. That will create a nice illusion of depth.
However, I feel that blurring the sky and water but not any part of the bridge is somewhat disorienting--it looks unnatural. I'll repeat a suggestion from another critique--blur the furthest part as well to create a sense of depth. Alternately, you could crop out the furthest part completely; the drastic change of depth works well on the right and leads the eye, but near the end, as the curve becomes more gradual, one loses interest. The end doesn't need nearly as much emphasis as the beginning.
I'm not sure what was in the sky at the time of the picture, but if there was any definition at all--even a few patterns in the clouds--it might complement the picture a little better. (Of course, if it was completely overcast, the way it's blurred is probably the best choice.)
I might be overly critical, but then again, this is a critique.
Vision: beautiful (road in the skyes)
Originality: of current interest
Technique: needs commenting
Impact: lowered by technique
Blured water erases feeling of depth which this photo meant to give i guess. Clouds reflected in water wasn't "motionblurred"
Well, you can expand selection of clouds, blur it, make a copy of blured clouds layer and move it so the dam's arches will croos blurred skies and there will be no white areas up on the arch.
What is near to the watcher must be sharp. You can blur the futherst part of the archtecture, forest and water, but not the closest parts. That will create a nice illusion of depth.
The Artist has requested Critique on this Artwork
Please sign up or login to post a critique.