Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wall and trees  (Read 7531 times)
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« on: February 15, 2008, 02:01:40 PM »
ReplyReply

[attachment=5137:attachment]

Comments welcome.

Jeremy
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2008, 05:08:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[attachment=5137:attachment]

Comments welcome.

Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I love the skeletal tree branches in the soft light of the fog. I also like the rough texture of the moss-covered stone wall. Unfortunately they seem like they belong in two separate photographs; the top of the wall brings the image to an abrupt halt.

At least for me, the biggest challenge of photographing in a forest is imposing some kind of visual order and coherence on an intrinsically chaotic subject. Simplifying the image by limiting what's included is key. Here I just find my eye dancing around the frame, never finding anything to rest on. You might try a close up of the moss-covered stone wall emphasizing its texture and detail. You might try a 'zen' kind of image of tree branches against the sky. Robert Glenn Ketchum did a bunch of beautiful images of forests that miraculously look perfectly composed despite their initial chaotic appearance; I wish I could pull that off.

Just my opinion; feel free to disagree. That's what's so cool about 'art'!  
Logged
TMcCulley
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2008, 06:41:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Comments welcome.

Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeremy,

I agree with Geoff and my suggestion is reshoot positioned more to the right making the wall longer while keeping the vertical elements in a prominent position.  Another approach to this shot is change to landscape orientation and put the vertical elements along the right third line and extend the fence along the bottom third line.

Of course just a suggestion or three

Tom
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2008, 01:04:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I think there's the potential for *two* good photos here, just not together.  The trees alone (from the other side of the wall?) could be interesting, and a close-up of the mossy wall could be interesting, but together each just distracts from the qualities of the other.

OK, I just went back to read Geoff's comments, and discovered that I'm saying pretty much the same thing...

Lisa
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5000



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2008, 05:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

There are probably dozens of ways how this shoot could be "improved", and the previous posters explained some of them. But, dare I say, none of that matters unless you (and we) know what it is that you wanted to convey with the picture, i.e., what kind of feeling or emotion. Once you know that, the rest is just matching the means (technique) to the desired end.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2008, 03:14:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there's the potential for *two* good photos here, just not together.  The trees alone (from the other side of the wall?) could be interesting, and a close-up of the mossy wall could be interesting, but together each just distracts from the qualities of the other.

OK, I just went back to read Geoff's comments, and discovered that I'm saying pretty much the same thing...

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you all for your comments.

I'm fascinated (and slightly concerned!) to find that one of the features of the shot which most appealed to me is the feature which none of you likes. It seemed to me that the coloured, solid wall gave an anchor to the wispy, ethereal branches above. But you all think that the two parts of the image don't belong together.

I'm sure you're not wrong. Am I? Hmm...

Maybe I'll make a large print, put it on my wall for a few weeks and see what opinion I form of it after that.

Jeremy
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2008, 10:29:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, there's no "right" or "wrong" here.  Different people have different aesthetics.  Often, a majority of people agree in one particular case, but there are always some who see things differently.  When asking for a critique, it's useful to get other peoples' opinions in case they recognize something you have overlooked, but if you just plain see things differently, then feel free to go your own way and please yourself (unless you need to sell the image to someone, in which case it would be financially prudent to go with the majority!).

I wonder whether you would better get across your idea of the wall anchoring the ethereal branches if you used a taller aspect ratio, with a little less wall at the bottom of the image, and much more fog so the tops of the trees are mistier and look farther away?  Maybe also a lower, wider-angle vantage point, also so the tops of the trees look farther away?

Lisa
« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 10:30:05 AM by nniko » Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5000



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2008, 06:06:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... It seemed to me that the coloured, solid wall gave an anchor to the wispy, ethereal branches above...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175875\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now we are talking!   So, your intention was to contrast the solid wall and ethereal branches. Here is my (humble) opinion why it is not working for me the way you expected:

- in the elongated ratio (1.6 to 1), the wall is occupying much less space than the branches

- in general, objects placed in the lower part of an image have less compositional weight than those in the upper part

- darker objects also have less weight (i;e., eyes are drawn to lighter objects first)

- the leading lines in this picture are the black, diagonal branches in the middle, but where do they lead?... right out of the picture!

So, the end result is that eyes are too quickly drawn to the upper, lighter part of the picture and then even quicker led out of the picture, barely leaving enough time to notice the wall or the contrasting patterns of stones vs. wispy branches.

Now, there is only so much that post-processing may achieve... often the best solution is compositional bracketing, i.e., taking multiple shots of the same scene, varying viewing angle and relationship between picture elements.

Speaking about post-processing, here is what I would do:

[attachment=5214:attachment]
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 07:02:24 PM by slobodan56 » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2008, 02:11:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are probably dozens of ways how this shoot could be "improved", and the previous posters explained some of them. But, dare I say, none of that matters unless you (and we) know what it is that you wanted to convey with the picture, i.e., what kind of feeling or emotion. Once you know that, the rest is just matching the means (technique) to the desired end.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Slobodan,

You raise an interesting point. I've started another topic ([a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]), since I think it's of more general interest than this photo in isolation.

Jeremy
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2008, 02:14:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeremy, there's no "right" or "wrong" here.  Different people have different aesthetics.  Often, a I wonder whether you would better get across your idea of the wall anchoring the ethereal branches if you used a taller aspect ratio, with a little less wall at the bottom of the image, and much more fog so the tops of the trees are mistier and look farther away?  Maybe also a lower, wider-angle vantage point, also so the tops of the trees look farther away?

Lisa
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=175955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fascinating! Compare your idea (which I think is close to mine) with Slobodan's suggestion below: diametrically opposed, I think.

Differing views are one of the reasons I like this site so much - de gustibus... etc.

Jeremy
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2008, 02:15:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Speaking about post-processing, here is what I would do:

[attachment=5214:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like that. It's not what I had in mind, but it does appeal.

Jeremy
Logged
hs0zfe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2008, 11:01:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure what exactly to tried to  s h o w. The moss covered foreground is very intreaguing, but you only show a fraction. then there are the trees, somehow as a different part. ** I would try to a) use a light tele to create a depth of field image, with the moss being in focus and the trees blurring a bit.  show more of the foreground. c) maybe dedicate half the image to the foreground?

Follow your instinct! Try to notice how an image changes when you move a bit... or use a different lens!

A Zeiss 2.0 / 110 mm with a Hasselblad F2000 might turn this into something quite different at open aperture.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad