Joined
·
2,639 Posts
You can't really fault the picture here. Presentation of the photograph can make a big impact on the overal look of the scape.
Although amano doesn't use underexposure, he doesn't potray a lot of his images in his books/magazines as they normally are. He uses all sorts of additional side/top/back lighting. ..just a different approach at total presentation.
As for the scape...
1st, I really do like it. Simple and pleasing to the eye (which is a sum of many small things). The fern mound is particularly striking.
THere are a few elements that I am not head over heals on.
the rock doesn't really do it for me as it seems like either a second focal point in too small of an area. Perhaps the other rocks that make it seem harmonious are hidden in the darness of the picture?
The only other part I do not like is that the anubias nana feels too hidden amongst the marsilea...so hidden that it isn't on the plant list?
. I probably would have tried another anubias coffeefolia (not sure of size, but the leaf color varience/texture would be a nice subtle contrast).
Although amano doesn't use underexposure, he doesn't potray a lot of his images in his books/magazines as they normally are. He uses all sorts of additional side/top/back lighting. ..just a different approach at total presentation.
As for the scape...
1st, I really do like it. Simple and pleasing to the eye (which is a sum of many small things). The fern mound is particularly striking.
THere are a few elements that I am not head over heals on.
the rock doesn't really do it for me as it seems like either a second focal point in too small of an area. Perhaps the other rocks that make it seem harmonious are hidden in the darness of the picture?
The only other part I do not like is that the anubias nana feels too hidden amongst the marsilea...so hidden that it isn't on the plant list?
. I probably would have tried another anubias coffeefolia (not sure of size, but the leaf color varience/texture would be a nice subtle contrast).
