Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Positives and negatives. Positive in the way you've proceed and presented the image. In terms of colour and contrast you really have conveyed the sense of fog. Negatives in terms of composition.
With composition, asymmetric balance. You can balance your image across the diagonals. When you create the frame that encloses your image you not only create the strong verticals and horizontals but you also create two strong diagonal lines. The problem with your image is that you've put everything of interest on one side of the diagonal. That leads the eye away from half your image and unfortunately off the edge of your image. You're asking yourself, "what's to the right?"
So what happens if you shift the subject so it most definitely crosses that line? Instead of your eye starting in the right and progressing to the right, your eye starts at the right and progresses left. You achieve this simply by moving the frame and hence the implied grid-work (diagonals etc) that goes with it and suddenly the interest in you shot appears in a different place in relationship to it. So your eye starts and finishes in different places simply because the centre of the image has shifted.
You impose geometry on an image when you impose the strict rectangle that encloses it. Think of composition as relating the lines of your subject with the implied grid-work of your framing:
(..) I do like images that use big areas of fog with a smaller element as a focal point. This might be better if it was a tree more isolated from the other trees (..)
(..) I do like images that use big areas of fog with a smaller element as a focal point. This might be better if it was a tree more isolated from the other trees (..)
@xenskhe I agree, it could have been an interesting composition if i could have been done! But thanks a lot for the feedback.
@Tim Tucker
Once again a great explanation, and interesting theory. Now I only have to get my mind around, how to use it. It gets a little abstract when reading about it and looking at dots![]()
I'll try not too think to hard about it, and just look at the result. But I must say it makes sense, and i'll keep that in mind@Tim Tucker
Once again a great explanation, and interesting theory. Now I only have to get my mind around, how to use it. It gets a little abstract when reading about it and looking at dots![]()
The landscape is just a more complex and random pattern, I used dots because it's easier to see the effect.
Don't think too hard just look at the results and see the effect it has because you will not see it in the words we use, only in the pictures.
With the first two sets, the scale and aspect ratio are the same, the dots are the same. So why do you see different patterns in the same set of dots?
With your original crop. There is no diagonal line in the landscape, it only exists between the two opposite corners of your frame, or crop. You suggest it simply by how you line your image up with them.
See in the second dot image just how strongly the diagonals dominate when you line the dots up with the corners of the frame, and see how they don't dominate the image when you don't stress that relationship (first dot image)? In essence that's the difference between Didereaux's and my crops and yours.![]()