Opinions, opinions everyone's got one

[pgriz]

I'd like to compliment Derrel on a good explanation and add the following. One of the most useful skills to learn when using a wide-angle lens, is to get the subject of interest close to the lens so that it takes up a decent amount of the frame, and then arrange the angle of view to make a pleasing composition.

 

[pgriz]

Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on

The horizon is curved due to it being hills. How do you level a curve?

There are usually plenty of things in the frame that give you an idea of where the horizon is - and they are the vertical elements (trees, fence posts, flag poles, etc.) that form another point of frame alignment.

 

[smoke665]

I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"

I think I understand what you were trying to accomplish. In the case of strong elements in the composition, they either have to be the focal point or not, they can't compete with each other. Had the big tree NOT been there, the small tree in the background combined with the "in focus" grass/weeds on the right would have created a strong sense of depth, but not competed with the sky. At that point a little work on the central white area, and the light streaks in the sky would have made it the focal point.

 

[Designer]

I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"

Successful, IMO. I like the original version.

 

[john.margetts]

Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on

The horizon is curved due to it being hills. How do you level a curve?

you get it as close as possible. It looks 5-10 degrees off

How can you possibly tell? The hill gradient could be anything and the tree is unlikely to be vertical.

 

[smoke665]

Yes, less wide-angle would have made the tree larger.

Having bad weather here, and didn't get to finish previous post.

Derrel is usually point on, and is here, with the exception that a wide angle lens (wider the better) can be used to enhance perspective (if that is your intent), but it needs to be shot linear (going away from you) not coming in from either side. Had you shot low from the top of the ridge on the right, toward the tree or down low from in front of the tree I think your perspective would have been improved. Leading lines can be anywhere in the lie of the landscape or the streaks in the sky. Move around a lot, even if you think you have the perfect shot.

 

[N1kon1k]

I was trying to make negative space work and give a sense of scale... I was actually trying to use the clouds as a stronger element to make the tree look lost in a bigger world... like a worm looking upwards and seeing "damn I thought that tree was bigger, but there is even bigger stuff out there"

I think I understand what you were trying to accomplish. In the case of strong elements in the composition, they either have to be the focal point or not, they can't compete with each other. Had the big tree NOT been there, the small tree in the background combined with the "in focus" grass/weeds on the right would have created a strong sense of depth, but not competed with the sky. At that point a little work on the central white area, and the light streaks in the sky would have made it the focal point.

Yes you definely understand what I was trying to accomplish, what I'm still having a hard time understanding is as to why you can't have to strong elements in a shot competing.... My initial idea (although not successful) was to create a conflict between the 2 subjects (tree vs. cloud) to keep the eye going back and forward... But I think to show that a bit more i should of created more depth/dynamic range between the subjects?

I'm not trying to dispute or argue my side...(clearly the shot can be stronger from what everyone is stating) and i appreciate all the input, Just trying to understand where I can improve to create a stronger impact with a shot...

 

[N1kon1k]

Horizon isn't level, comp is pretty boring, and I believe I see some haloing around the tree branches where you pushed the shadows too hard. Some harsh critique but that's what helped me grow, so I'll pass it on

The horizon is curved due to it being hills. How do you level a curve?

you get it as close as possible. It looks 5-10 degrees off

How can you possibly tell? The hill gradient could be anything and the tree is unlikely to be vertical.

I think you're both right in your own way... what Jsecordphoto is trying to say and I agree with him is that the left portion of the picture shows the horizon line dipping down to the right....I looked back at the photo and yes he is right....

I think what you John.Margetts is saying... Is that because the shot was taken on a hill? i obviously had to straighten the shot a bit more than usual to give a straighter look to the shot... perhaps if that portion of the horizon wasn't in the shot? it wouldn't of been as noticeable that the shot was rearranged ...

 

[smoke665]

what I'm still having a hard time understanding is as to why you can't have to strong elements in a shot competing.... My initial idea (although not successful) was to create a conflict between the 2 subjects (tree vs. cloud) to keep the eye going back and forward..

There's been a lot of water under this old bridge since art in college, but there's a thing called "Balance" in art. It refers to the sense of how we perceive visual weights that offset one another, IE- your tree and the sky. Additionally, elements should be arranged to have either symmetrical balance (equal on each side), or asymmetrically (different but arranged in a way they feel balanced). The rule of thirds, Fibonacci's ratio, etc., seek to guide you towards that end.

When you have two strong elements with a weight difference in the two, it allows the eye to be drawn to the stronger of the elements and find a resting place. Assuming other things like color harmony, contrast, arrangement of the elements, etc., are in alignment, then the composition seems to be "in balance" making the viewer feel more comfortable, hence a more pleasing image and one which the viewer lingers on. Imbalance causes an unsettled feeling, the viewer isn't likely to view the image for very long, nor will they like it.

As the artist, it is your choice to determine the direction you want your image to take. However before you seek to break the rules, you should probably study them in more detail, so that you have an understanding of how your viewer will perceive your image. There are those artists out there that deliberately create imbalance to disturb the viewer. Some may like it, but myself I don't care for it, and generally move away from it quickly. Course that may be the OCD side of me kicking in

 

[N1kon1k]

what I'm still having a hard time understanding is as to why you can't have to strong elements in a shot competing.... My initial idea (although not successful) was to create a conflict between the 2 subjects (tree vs. cloud) to keep the eye going back and forward..

There's been a lot of water under this old bridge since art in college, but there's a thing called "Balance" in art. It refers to the sense of how we perceive visual weights that offset one another, IE- your tree and the sky. Additionally, elements should be arranged to have either symmetrical balance (equal on each side), or asymmetrically (different but arranged in a way they feel balanced). The rule of thirds, Fibonacci's ratio, etc., seek to guide you towards that end.

When you have two strong elements with a weight difference in the two, it allows the eye to be drawn to the stronger of the elements and find a resting place. Assuming other things like color harmony, contrast, arrangement of the elements, etc., are in alignment, then the composition seems to be "in balance" making the viewer feel more comfortable, hence a more pleasing image and one which the viewer lingers on. Imbalance causes an unsettled feeling, the viewer isn't likely to view the image for very long, nor will they like it.

As the artist, it is your choice to determine the direction you want your image to take. However before you seek to break the rules, you should probably study them in more detail, so that you have an understanding of how your viewer will perceive your image. There are those artists out there that deliberately create imbalance to disturb the viewer. Some may like it, but myself I don't care for it, and generally move away from it quickly. Course that may be the OCD side of me kicking in

Lol well done sir ... thank you for taking the time to explain it furthermore... Derrel once told me to work on composition and balance and I have been trying to understand it... although photography is a bit subjective on how the viewer perceives it.... one thing you can't shy away from is a keen eye that knows if the shot works? Or doesn't? Hence the reason why I always post my shots... I need to know what works and what doesn't... this shot apparently failed in composition and also balance.... which seems to be a pattern I'm under... balance is a bit tough...

Any guidance on balance that you can suggest for me to study? Books, videos, photos, photographers?

Any will do

 

[Derrel]

HERE is a book I looked at at the library not that long ago. Very good, and has some excellent illustrations showing how visual balance and harmony can be arrived. There's one specific scene, of a farmer working in a rice field, and the scene is shot with multiple different uses of framing and composition. It's a very good example showing how differrent framings affect the sensro of balance. Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books

The book has a LOT of helpful tips and examinations of digitial photography composition, with the idea that the digitial photo will in many cases, be adjusted and often times will be significantly altered after the capture stage; this is very different from the old film-era idea of compose-to-the-very-edges-and-do-not-ever-crop. I think this book would help ANY beginning or intermediate photographer. Freeman is a very capable writer and teacher, and has been around for a long time.

 

[smoke665]

I found a suggestion by Derrel and JC on books by John Hedgecoe, to be great resources on a number of things. I have this one, really good the art of digital photography, john hedgecoe - Google Search or The Book of Photography by John Hedgecoe ... Great How-To Book | eBay

This one is dated, but a lot of the same principals still apply the complete photography course, by john hedgecoe - Google Search

And lastly this one: how to take great photographs, joh hedgecoes - Google Search

He seems to explain things in a simple manner.

 

[smoke665]

@Derrel I could swear I've read this by Freman, but I can't remember for sure. Guess I'll have to go get it. Nice thing about short term memory loss is that everything is new again!!

 

[Derrel]

@Derrel I could swear I've read this by Freman, but I can't remember for sure. Guess I'll have to go get it. Nice thing about short term memory loss is that everything is new again!!

I believe this is the "for digital photographers" re-jiggering of the same basic idea from his earlier book of a similar title, but as he mentions specifically, digital images are often shot and will be re-worked, composited, or cropped, etc.. The Photographer's Eye was incorporated in his earlier book's title, but this one is definitely new, and is different.

And yes, I've been recommending John Hedgecoe'smany books for a long time here on TPF; the suggestions you give above would be solid books for anybody wanting to better learn some photography fundamentals,tips,strategies, and concepts.

 

[N1kon1k]

HERE is a book I looked at at the library not that long ago. Very good, and has some excellent illustrations showing how visual balance and harmony can be arrived. There's one specific scene, of a farmer working in a rice field, and the scene is shot with multiple different uses of framing and composition. It's a very good example showing how differrent framings affect the sensro of balance. Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books

The book has a LOT of helpful tips and examinations of digitial photography composition, with the idea that the digitial photo will in many cases, be adjusted and often times will be significantly altered after the capture stage; this is very different from the old film-era idea of compose-to-the-very-edges-and-do-not-ever-crop. I think this book would help ANY beginning or intermediate photographer. Freeman is a very capable writer and teacher, and has been around for a long time.

Just bought it... should have it in a week or so
Thanks a bunch

Really starting to think that posting bad photos are better than posting good ones... you can only grow from bad ones and get conceited by good ones