Do any of these work for you?

[Ron Evers]

When I am walking about I often see something I think would make a nice picture but when viewed on the computer it goes in the trash. Here are samples of what I am talking about - I just about trashed them but decided to seek the opinion of others.

Do any work for you?


1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[Lilyinthefield]

1&2 definitely no. They're busy and nothing really eye catching.
3? maybe?
4, eh, not so much but not as bad as 1&2.

I'm with you I do alot of hiking with my camera and sometimes I get home and wonder what in the heck I was thinking taking 10 pictures at different angles of a dead leaf or a dead berry, lol. But then sometimes I get home and I have something really cool. I just keep clicking, it's part of the fun of hiking

 

[JAC526]

They are all really busy (hard to tell the subject).

The last one the subject is clear but not very interesting.

Just my .02 cents and not very informed opinion.




EDIT: the last two the subject is clear.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Part of the problem is you are showing us (or a majority of us) things we have seen, numerous times. There is nothing really interesting about the subject, or the way it is presented. That, I feel, is one reason nature shots are soooooooooo difficult to create interesting images.

 

[rsawyer]

My opinion:

The first two are too busy, with no clear subject.

3 & 4 are better in that regard, but the lighting is harsh, and there's not much that's particularly interesting going on.

The third one is actually the best IMO, in terms of framing, subject focus, but the subject is just too boring.

 

[dots]

None of them work for me. Off the bat..a couple of theories why..None of them contain two or more primaries. We have the yellow leaf and some secondary colors. The shots are all ambiguous - in that they place similar tones next to eachother. There's little contrast - or counterpoint. In terms of composition, any sweet spots in terms or DM or thirds are negated by discordant interactions elsewhere. Sometimes a 1:1 can set the absolute character of what's within (the square has a special power I think to do this). There's to much lacking in these to achieve some satisfying/engaging result.

 

[Ron Evers]

Thanks for your comments folks, it seems you have confirmed my opinion of the shots. I will continue to try but maybe it is as Bitter said, that my subject matter is too familiar. However, I believe most folk do not "see" the details in nature I seem unable to capture properly.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I think you captured the details just fine.

 

[JAC526]

Here's a few of mine:

I feel kind of the same way you do. It's hard to make a truly compelling nature shot.

Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread. Just figured it was appropriate place to show these.

 

[jgooz]

ya i agree, nothing really stands out at first. although, and i run into the same thing. ive been trying to get more and more up close when i find myself in these environments. because as the detail clearly stands out the closer you get to things, the character of it becomes more visible.

 

[JAC526]

Of the three I posted I like the tree bark one the most.

Coincidentally I'm closest to that one.

 

[dots]

These have more going for them in terms of color. 1 and 3 use two primaries (number one just about, if the terracotta/brown is treated as towards red.. or can be enhanced to be). The second picture has near-black (silhouetted against the sky) and combined with white (giving color harmony), plus one spot color (which is also a primary). For me, at a glance, there looks potentially DM/ROT compositional relationships in 1 & 2, as well. Not much stands in the way of 1 & 2 making a good image but 3 has a much to negate it, as to attract.

Here's a few of mine:

I feel kind of the same way you do. It's hard to make a truly compelling nature shot.

Sorry if I'm hijacking your thread. Just figured it was appropriate place to show these.

 

[JAC526]

Thanks for the critique.