Sully's

Dogdots

Taken at Sully's Refuge last fall. Can't remember if I've posted these before, but I re-edited them yesterday.


1 --




2 -- Color version





3 -- BW version

black mamba

Hi Mary,

The first shot has some promise with the pond and that structure being the subject/primary focal point. It might have more impact if you cropped from the right all the way over to the tall tree in the center and make a vertical shot out of it.

The other two shots suffer from having no real subject to catch one's attention. Or, perhaps, your choice of PP masks it so as to make it difficult to discern. Of the two, the colored one is the more pleasing to look at but neither one really works for me. There's no story of note here. The B&W version seems particularly cluttered.

It's nice to see you expanding your approaches relative to different PP work. You're one of the folks on this forum who has, I think, progressed the most in advancing their skill levels. Enhanced PP experimentation will go far with you. I believe, though, that the choice of subject matter here was not the right one to highlight your newer approaches.

Take care,

Tom

Dogdots

black mamba wrote:

Hi Mary,

The first shot has some promise with the pond and that structure being the subject/primary focal point. It might have more impact if you cropped from the right all the way over to the tall tree in the center and make a vertical shot out of it.

The other two shots suffer from having no real subject to catch one's attention. Or, perhaps, your choice of PP masks it so as to make it difficult to discern. Of the two, the colored one is the more pleasing to look at but neither one really works for me. There's no story of note here. The B&W version seems particularly cluttered.

It's nice to see you expanding your approaches relative to different PP work. You're one of the folks on this forum who has, I think, progressed the most in advancing their skill levels. Enhanced PP experimentation will go far with you. I believe, though, that the choice of subject matter here was not the right one to highlight your newer approaches.

Take care,

Tom

Hi Tom --

I'm so happy that you gave me your insight on these photos. I really like that as that's the only way I'll learn -- Thank you

I was going more for the shadows/lighting in the 2nd photo. Not to much of a subject matter tho as it was a very wooded area ... my mistake as I can see that now. As for the 1st photo....I notice that dang tree is almost dead center oops!

Here are the two photos I started working with.







Thanks again Tom for your insight. It is truly appreciated I will head back to this area again this summer and retake the first photo and see what I can get with the second one.

black mamba

I do understand, Mary, what your goals were in hoping to show an interesting play of shadows and shapes when you took the wooded shots. They bring to mind an observation and opinion I've formed over time.

For a predominantly wooded scene to be successful, certain elements have to be present: 1 ) there must be some compelling story that's being told or 2 ) some truly exceptional subject matter must be evident. When neither of these elements are present, you simply end up with a shot of trees and limbs, the significance of which is usually lost on the viewer who was not there.

I think the main reason these kind of shots seldom turn out as well as we want is really fairly simple. The depth of the scene we see in person does not translate very well to the two-dimensional world in which the photo is viewed. Obviously, many wonderful wooded scenes are well recorded. Most often though, the photographer will incorporate one, or both, of the elements mentioned above. And they also tend to utilize certain tactics that help create that sense of depth that is needed.

These remarks are specific to, more or less, fairly condensed scenes. The majestic, far-reaching forested mountain scenes that stretch to the horizon are not what we are talking about.

See you,

Tom

Dogdots

black mamba wrote:

I do understand, Mary, what your goals were in hoping to show an interesting play of shadows and shapes when you took the wooded shots. They bring to mind an observation and opinion I've formed over time.

For a predominantly wooded scene to be successful, certain elements have to be present: 1 ) there must be some compelling story that's being told or 2 ) some truly exceptional subject matter must be evident. When neither of these elements are present, you simply end up with a shot of trees and limbs, the significance of which is usually lost on the viewer who was not there.

I think the main reason these kind of shots seldom turn out as well as we want is really fairly simple. The depth of the scene we see in person does not translate very well to the two-dimensional world in which the photo is viewed. Obviously, many wonderful wooded scenes are well recorded. Most often though, the photographer will incorporate one, or both, of the elements mentioned above. And they also tend to utilize certain tactics that help create that sense of depth that is needed.

These remarks are specific to, more or less, fairly condensed scenes. The majestic, far-reaching forested mountain scenes that stretch to the horizon are not what we are talking about.

See you,

Tom

Thank you Tom for taking the time to explain this to me

I never thought about it in that way, but it makes total sense now. Wonderful info that I will use then I approach this type of photo again.