this is very cool! i just hate the moon in it, though. think it would have more "feeling" without it (same cropping).

not a moon person, ha? well, you may have point... I think I made it too big... or too shiny.
btw: the stars are barely visible due to reduction in resolution... the print size shows them much better.

well, i like the moon, but i think this shot would be cool without it. the contrast of he eerie building with lots of dark, negative space... i would fav it without the moon... stas are okay, btw...

where the fuck is the moon?!
well, I guess you wisely decided to remove it,I didn't see it but the pic is good without it.

p.s.

the seconed pic will be also better without the moon(there are some bright stars close to it and its unreal because the light of the moon is supposed to make the stars unvisible to us).

I get all sorts of mixed up opinions about the moon issue. I think I removed it from this one since I felt it was more minimalistic then th other one.

and about the stars not being visible and all; well, it's highly depended on the stars. often really bright stars have the same effect on much lesser bright stars. but, if you get a bright star near the moon, it will still be pretty visible I assure you.

The bright stars you see by the moon are the solar system's planets reflecting the sun's light, if you want to put some of those is fine, but too many will seem unreal.
and by how fast you've replied to me I now understand why you don't get up early and shoot in the good hours.

--
all for one & 3 for 10

I don't think I would mind if the moon were still there. The emotions behind understanding a concept come from personal life experiences and the way a person thinks. So here's how I would think if I saw the moon: a representation of a soul traveling on its way to the next life...probably female since Diana is the mythylogical goddess of the moon, and Apollo is of the sun. Heck, Diana herself could be reincarnating here. Nonetheless, it works either way. So let's get down to business...

What appeals to me the most here is the composition. The light values are on the bottom and the darkvalues are on the top. From this, contrast is created. And by now, I hope you realize, I'm a contrast addict, so that's good, in my opinion. Like the picture before, the color scheme is in check. Unlike the other one, the values are more evenly spaced and more appropriately used. Also, what really works here is the use of repitition. The series of rectangles add movement, dragging the eye from left to right, or vice versa.

Another nice touch is the position of the door and the most extreme highlight. Since the door is slightly darker than the tent, there's contrast to the peice from left to right...or vice versa. This door also adds to the concept of the image. In my crazy imagination, it's like an entry way to the light. This goes with that famous phrase, " Don't go to the light! ". This could very be that entry way to death, and the life beyond.

However, even if the negative space in dark values is necessary to convey the surreal feeling, I don't think that much of it is needed. My suggestion is to cut off the bottom 2/3 of what it is right now.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck.

--
Criticism of the Constructive, please.

what is it with you cropping everything, ah? j/k man.
as I often do, I left it somewhat ambiguous; you can look at it as a terminal from Life to Death (Life=Left / Death=Right) or you can see it as the stage, "between" Hell and Heaven (Hell=Left Heaven=Right).
and I'm sure ppl will come up with even more concepts to it...

anyway, thanks a bunch man.

thanks for the lovely comment.

Lol, you're the first one who actually noticed the cropping thing.

As it stands, I know nothing about photography itself. That being said, I don't know any of techniques or tricks based on that medium. All I have to go with are the elements and principles of art, and basic techniques that just about anybody can use. I can't suggest too much, considering that my knowledge is limited and that I only critique on the elements/principles of art. That's why when, for example, you argue on showing something specific (the entirety of Iona), where I argue on value (an element of art). Concept comes second to me when I prioratize things to consider.

In fact...if I were critique on a realism basis, where the principles/elements of art didn't matter, but rather how real it was, I'd have to say photos are flawless. I wouldn't be able to say much about them, constructively. If I were to critique on an emotional basis, I'd have no reasoning behind my thoughts. That would be solely based on the emotion and concept I received from something. So...that's why I critique and suggest the way I do.

Oh and...your welcome.

--
Criticism of the Constructive, please.