Frosty morning

[Ron Evers]

It was -20°C this morning. Three pics for C&C.


1.

2.

3.

 

[fiveoboy01]

#2 I like, and the DOF.

#1 there is really no one object my eyes are drawn to. #3 there is nothing else in the pic. The viewer gets no depth perception like in #2.

 

[Ron Evers]

#2 I like, and the DOF.

#1 there is really no one object my eyes are drawn to. #3 there is nothing else in the pic. The viewer gets no depth perception like in #2.

For #3 iI was struggling to get a pic without background clutter before my fingers froze. I wonder if others feel the same as you on this.

Thanks for you review.

 

[Mgw189]

Some pretty cool shots but as said above with the first shot there is no real subject. The second shot best of the three. Its really hard to get the details of the frost/snow to show up with the lighting the way it was. You worked with what you had. I would love to have seen #3 with a dark background maybe another branch with the evergreens in the back ground so that some of the detail of the snow would show a little better.

 

[bradsperry]

#2 I like, and the DOF.

#1 there is really no one object my eyes are drawn to. #3 there is nothing else in the pic. The viewer gets no depth perception like in #2.

maybe your not seeing the object, because you have limited your thoughts and imagination to what rules YOU think everybody should be applying to THEIR photos. perhaps the OBJECT of photo #1 is the overall beauty of the scenery and that there is no specific subject.

As for #3 ....... how many art forms can you think of that this type of photo could fall into? i can think of 2 off hand .... impressionism and symbolism come to mind. which is nothing more than a way for the artist to convey their impression rather than the objective characteristic or rule of what a photo should contain.

 

[fiveoboy01]

maybe your not seeing the object, because you have limited your thoughts and imagination to what rules YOU think everybody should be applying to THEIR photos. perhaps the OBJECT of photo #1 is the overall beauty of the scenery and that there is no specific subject.

As for #3 ....... how many art forms can you think of that this type of photo could fall into? i can think of 2 off hand .... impressionism and symbolism come to mind. which is nothing more than a way for the artist to convey their impression rather than the objective characteristic or rule of what a photo should contain.

The OP asked for C&C and I gave it. You on the other hand did nothing other than add useless banter to the thread.

I never said his pictures were BAD, I simply gave my opinion on them, which is OF COURSE going to be subjective and my own observations.

 

[Joe&Caroline]

#2 I like, and the DOF.

#1 there is really no one object my eyes are drawn to. #3 there is nothing else in the pic. The viewer gets no depth perception like in #2.

I was thinking the same exact thing ...are we looking down into the snow on the ground if so even if you threw a twing on the ground in the background just to have a better sense of depth . but i enjoyed them .:thumbup:

 

[Ron Evers]

Well, indeed the first shot was of the overall scene to provide perspective for the tight shots. Even in the dead flat light it was quite attractive to view.

So often pics on the forum are criticized for the distracting backgrounds & so I attempted to show one with & without background & it seems so far the absence of a background is not found pleasing. Interesting!

 

[bradsperry]

The OP asked for C&C and I gave it. You on the other hand did nothing other than add useless banter to the thread.

I never said his pictures were BAD, I simply gave my opinion on them, which is OF COURSE going to be subjective and my own observations.

if you see nothing more than useless banter, and my comments somehow insinuating that you think his photos are bad .... you are mistaken and i apologize that i explained it (or stated, if you will) incorrectly for you.

don't look at a pic and figure that it "has" to have this or that. is that easier?

i've looked at your prior posts. and that is all you pretty much explain in your C&C. almost every critisism i have read in this forum, it feels like the viewer ASSUMES what the artist is trying to portray with their vision. and i haven't found one reply where the viewer asks the artist, what he is trying to portray............. and then from there, offer what could be done better, or try this.

so, once again, i apologize that you see usless banter when i was merely trying to say, "open up, be inquisitive, don't assume ........ don't limit your self to rules".