Jul 15, 2005, 22:31
![[Image: cloverSM.jpg]](http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/images/upload/cloverSM.jpg)
Jul 16, 2005, 00:20
I had a comment and an upload for this image, but I deleted it. My upload basically straightened the horizon - but I realized the tilted horizon is a stylistic thing that works well on some photos - particularly those that emphasize a feeling of disorientation or that attempt to show the subject in a detached or alien light. That works well sometimes, but I think not on this photo which is a straight capture of a landscape on the edge of an urban environment.
These landscapes are fascinating in their own right, but again I feel this one suffers from a lack of a clearly identified subject or focal point. To move this photo beyond snapshot, it will require more than the tilted horizon - it will need to to have a distinct subject, and portray that subject in the context of its environment - this will require additional compostion and perhaps require you to walk further into the field to search for a more dramatic shooting angle.
I realize that I have been quite critical of your last few shots, but as you are posting in "critiques" these days, I suspect that you are honestly interested in how to improve your style to increase the "wow" factor in your photos. Please feel free to contest any comments that I have made.
These landscapes are fascinating in their own right, but again I feel this one suffers from a lack of a clearly identified subject or focal point. To move this photo beyond snapshot, it will require more than the tilted horizon - it will need to to have a distinct subject, and portray that subject in the context of its environment - this will require additional compostion and perhaps require you to walk further into the field to search for a more dramatic shooting angle.
I realize that I have been quite critical of your last few shots, but as you are posting in "critiques" these days, I suspect that you are honestly interested in how to improve your style to increase the "wow" factor in your photos. Please feel free to contest any comments that I have made.
Jul 16, 2005, 07:14
I hate when people tell me to crop a photo. It drives me absolutely bonkers. Saying "Cut the top of [whatever] off" adds nothing more than saying "you should have cut off the top of [whatever]." This is the single reason why I've given upon PhotoSIG. It drives me nuts. So I won't do it.
So.
Looking at this, I can't help but feel that there's too much sky. The foreground and its texture should be the subject, so the sky doesn't add much information. Specifically, I don't like how the one tree is whole while the other two are cut off, it's unbalanced and gives the whole tree too much visual weight. I trust you, the photographer, to show me the trees if I'm supposed to see them; if I don't need to see them, cut them down to size. If this is the only image you have to work with, I'd suggest a faux-panoramic format that removes some of the pre-clover grass and just lops off the stray top branches from the intact tree. The downside is that this loses the interesting cloud, but the title's "Clover", not "Clover and Cloud".
The current framing does use the trees for good dramatic effect, and I really like the way they establish a rhythm through the top of the photo. I also like the amount of foreground, so reducing the tops of the trees may require a true panoramic multi-shot photo. If you could add to the field on the left of the photo, just keeping the trees on the right, that might be (my idea of) perfect.
Other people may not share this point of view...
... I do like your forays into finding subjects that are easy to overlook. I usually don't comment, because I usually don't have much to add, but I look forward to seeing more. I shoot in a very different environment, but these photos have reminded me to keep my eyes open and have inspired me to try.
So.
Looking at this, I can't help but feel that there's too much sky. The foreground and its texture should be the subject, so the sky doesn't add much information. Specifically, I don't like how the one tree is whole while the other two are cut off, it's unbalanced and gives the whole tree too much visual weight. I trust you, the photographer, to show me the trees if I'm supposed to see them; if I don't need to see them, cut them down to size. If this is the only image you have to work with, I'd suggest a faux-panoramic format that removes some of the pre-clover grass and just lops off the stray top branches from the intact tree. The downside is that this loses the interesting cloud, but the title's "Clover", not "Clover and Cloud".
The current framing does use the trees for good dramatic effect, and I really like the way they establish a rhythm through the top of the photo. I also like the amount of foreground, so reducing the tops of the trees may require a true panoramic multi-shot photo. If you could add to the field on the left of the photo, just keeping the trees on the right, that might be (my idea of) perfect.
Other people may not share this point of view...
... I do like your forays into finding subjects that are easy to overlook. I usually don't comment, because I usually don't have much to add, but I look forward to seeing more. I shoot in a very different environment, but these photos have reminded me to keep my eyes open and have inspired me to try.
Jul 16, 2005, 08:24
Thank you guys very much. I have never had better criticism than this. I know what you mean Toad. This is a visually impoverished environment. I am working with what I have. But there is a romance to grassland. That's where I live, grassland that has been processed to a shadow of what it was. I try to see the old Prairie in the new suburban form.
--Don
--Don