Thanks, for your comments, Carol and Dean. I have been waiting to say anything more until I thought everybody who might have something to say weighed in, so as not to influence the direction of the remarks in any direction. I just learned that Al has been traveling (poor guy HAD to go to Yellowstone for a Winter photo shoot
), so I won't wait any longer.
I shared with Carol privately yesterday, that I got lazy when I converted this raw image to jpeg to post here and did it on my laptop screen. I haven't recently calibrated it and even when I do, it has an awful cast to it. Looked at it on my calibrated monitor and see what you you mean about the saturation. Looks almost "neon"
. Looks a bit like somebody who just got PS for the first time and went wild with the saturation slider. Both the reds on the barns and the grass look pretty unnatural. I am attaching a "re-work" which I hope looks more natural. One point, though, is that I am at work and didn't have the raw image to work with, so my changes are to the jpeg that was posted. The details in the image are breaking down pretty substantially, which illustrates my mantra about working with raw and tiff/psd files for image editing. So the re-work is mostly for the compositional suggestions.
Dean, I like your suggestion re: the crop. I think it balances the top and bottom nicely and preserves the dramatic sky. The light wasn't really nice that afternoon (though you can see some side lighting on left back sides of the barns), so the entire image does have a bit of a dour look to it. Note sure I like that. This one is probably not a "wall hanger" anyway (as I have said before, I post images for critique that I think I or somebody else can learn from by discussing weaknesses--and sometimes strengths--and how to overcome/present them. I am not posting my "best" work here).
Carol. As above, agree 1000% on the saturation (see, Al? I can be reasonable
). Interesting comment re: the third barn. Wouldn't that give me 3 places my eye couldn't rest??
Seriously, while I understand the point, I don't really agree with your camera club member's observation. First, I agree that a well-placed third barn could strengthen the composition -- Generally we see nicer compositional balance in odd numbers. I know I follow that rule often when landscaping my yard. In this case, I think the big barn/little barn and their distance apart works o.k.
I do think placing the bigger barn closer to the center of the image, while keeping the smaller barn farther from the center, would have resulted in better balance in the image and therefore a more pleasing composition. In this case, the viewer may feel a bit unsettled because it looks out of balance with too much weight in the left side of the image.
Any thoughts?