Opposite of self-deprecation certainly isn't announcing to the world you're an artistic failure, but whatever. Not the point of this thread. . .
CRITBARF REGURGITATION EXPULSION CLEANUP ON AISLE17, PLEASE.NOW=TRUE
The bg has an obvious color tinting, but
not the fg.
"Regarding the tangent, I thought that this is what aligning for- and background objects are labeled, whereas here the foliage is clearly overlapping the sun." What?/not understanding . . . The undesirable tangent effect is when there's an area in a composition where multiple things coincidentally intersect and/or form a concentration of details that is potentially found to be confusing, even unsettling/unattractive to the eye. Best avoided. The sun/mts/tree tangent could be worse, but it could also be better.
Yes, obviously it's a moon, what else would a faint, curved shape in the sky be. Just because I can recognize human and animal figures in Picasso's
Guernica, does that mean they couldn't be rendered more clearly? Yes it's cubism, but you're not doing cubism.
You don't understand the rule of thirds like I do, I guess. It's simply a device for artists/photogs to strike up pleasing compositions, which is based on human nature itself - what/why the eye finds a composition pleasing or not. No need for "competing" elements in order to utilize it.
If you're referring to ambient, diffused light from the environment that's causing the downward shadow, I don't see how that works - ambient light isn't directional, it doesn't cause hard shadows. Right now, your tree is telling us there are two light sources, one above, one in front. Can you find a photographic example?
No AA. Color conservation? Perhaps. But is it to a detriment?
Canopy detail is still rather odd. Think simpler. Forget about trying to convey every leaf/branch, just imply them.
