hello again! Okay - so if this was a physical set, and I was a cinematographer, I'd be itching to include additional lighting to lend further texture and hierachy to this image; for instance, the rocks in the immediate foreground feel flat and 'content-free' - and if it was a physical set, I'd be bouncing non-specified lighting at it to bring out the detail and lead the eye - not a huge amount, but something to make the textures and forms 'pop' - I'd also make use of some rim lighting - highlights to crisp up the outlines - the same is true elsewhere in the image - if you squint at your image and thereby knock out the detail, you'll see the elements that sort of fall way and don't contribute.
All of that said - this image has lots of positive qualities in place - but like your previous 2, now is the time to take a few steps back and actually ask the question - what does this image need?
hello again! Okay - so if this was a physical set, and I was a cinematographer, I'd be itching to include additional lighting to lend further texture and hierachy to this image; for instance, the rocks in the immediate foreground feel flat and 'content-free' - and if it was a physical set, I'd be bouncing non-specified lighting at it to bring out the detail and lead the eye - not a huge amount, but something to make the textures and forms 'pop' - I'd also make use of some rim lighting - highlights to crisp up the outlines - the same is true elsewhere in the image - if you squint at your image and thereby knock out the detail, you'll see the elements that sort of fall way and don't contribute.
ReplyDeleteAll of that said - this image has lots of positive qualities in place - but like your previous 2, now is the time to take a few steps back and actually ask the question - what does this image need?