As always, I am eager for a critique from anyone who cares to…Thanks, A.L> Dussault
Only critique I have is that it is great composition and a lovely painted scene …
I think it’s a pretty image. Your thoughts on mood and color palette came together well. And it’s a great composition. Well done.
Something I’ve seen mentioned quite often in photography videos and tutorials is the potential distracting nature of small, incidental features on the edge of the frame. In that regard, you might consider cloning out the two small plant features along the bottom, to the left and right of the foreground plants.
To me, the subject of a landscape is often just the whole scene. It feels like that in this case, to me. However, the foreground plants are like a minor subject. In that line of thinking, I think those incidental features take away from the plants.
Since you asked.
I like the impressionistic feeling of the image.
It took me a second to get into it because, for me, it wasn’t immediately clear that that was flora in the snow.
The sky, water, and snow, as design elements, are all approximately the same size. The image would be stronger if they were three different sizes.
I understand what ScottO is saying. But I don’t find the flora distracting. In fact, I think they add to the interest and depth of the image by contrasting the foreground detail with the softer distance.
I do like this image. As good impressionism, it does make you want to enter.
@Dragonpainter Note I was referring only to the small bits circled in red.
I still think those little bits marked in red are fine for this image.
Aesthetically, I think they help to hold the composition together. The snow in the image is almost a flat blue wash. A negative space. And the growth there reduces the power of that space just a little.
Subjectively, the growth along the shore gives the viewer a point of interest. Something to identify. Particularly with the stem between those two bits.
Having said that. I think it would be a good image with or without those bits.