I agree, Ken's edit is what you want. He even removed the pole sticking out at the top of the slope.
Someone was saying that we take shots and never look at them again. Well, we have one here who does not do that. Frank is the other I think (btw where is he?).
Thanks, Ken and Bobo! Ken's crop is great and I agree is a softer, more pastoral scene. However, it tells a completely different story. Even the subject is different.
Perhaps I phrased the question wrongly or in a misleading fashion, so I'll try again: If we accept that the bridge is to be included in the scene, does the post-processing and depth of field convey a relatively soft, pastoral scene? Does that rephrasing of the question make sense?
I actually thought I had gotten rid of the pole at the top.
Yes it does.
Yes, it does, except.....if the walker had been sheep, I think I would like it much better. The walker takes away from the "pastoral" effect...Just my opinion.
For me, Mike, that little bit of foliage on the right has to go. If it was bigger it would balance the small tree on the left. But as it is, I just find it distracting.
Either clone or possibly a bit of crop from the right side as well. I suspect that a fraction from the bottom and right side would make the bridge less dominant and the hill seem steeper. Very little though.
Nat,
I don't know how to break it to my wife that you would prefer that she was a sheep or that the suggestion of removing her altogether is yours.
Geoff,
I see what you mean about the leaves on the right. They're gone now.
All,
Does this revised version seem more pastoral (again, assuming the bridge is not to be removed). By the way, this was just a quickie change. I see that I forgot to remove my wife's shadow when I removed her. I'm very surprised that this image is closer to what I imagined without her in it.
Can I be a devil's advocate? Hard for me to clearly express what I think. But I find it hard to reconcile the hard crisp lines of the bridge with a soft pastoral scene; which I believe is what Ken has achieved with his crop.
The bridge is a real eye catcher and for me dominates the frame at the expense of the soft pastoral scene which has lost its impact. The bridge is so dominant it just hits you and you tend not to look beyond it. For me the focus is the bridge and not the pastoral scene. If the bridge is so important, then why not make it the focus and forget the poor lady struggling up the hill through all that long grass in the sake of art? But these are only suggestions for a different approach
But I do reckon that that your good lady adds to the story of someone meandering on a pleasant walk through a gentle pasture, far better than some wooly four legged grass muncher!
Sorry to be so opinionated and I am probably quite wrong in my suggestions. It is your picture and your story. Not Mine!
Last edited by ucci; 31st January 2013 at 11:01 PM.
That makes a lot of sense, Ken. For me, the strong, dominant lines of the bridge don't take away from the pastoral quality but I understand that everyone is not going to feel the same about what is and isn't pastoral.
I have to ask, Bobo: I can immediately understand why you might have made the other changes, but why flip it?
People tend to look left to right, top to bottom, light to dark.
Now there are 2 separations - a light and a dark part. The top half that the eyes will pan across "nothing" to get to the path and then down to the "sheep" and then further down into the bridge, pan around the details there and exit in the right bottom corner. Or, move back up right to the path and start over. The pasture is ignored mostly as there is no detail of much interest.
Mind you I am no expert at anything least of all wide scenes like these. Was just trying out a couple of looks and this appeared to do what you wanted but also appear somewhat strong.
I still prefer the edit without the bridge.
Last edited by Bobobird; 31st January 2013 at 11:22 PM.
Now I understand. Thanks for explaining. Keep in mind that not all societies read from left to right.
I just might visit this scene and really work it. The discussion has been very motivating. Thanks to all!
I prefer the first one BUT rather than remove your wife I think she needs to be bigger. The scale seems wrong. I wonder if you would be allowed to change her for a tall leggy blond rather than some sheep.
I like the version with the bridge, without the wife (so sorry, Mrs. Buckley!!) The "modern" walking person takes away from the nostalgic pastoral effect. But if you're going to add anything, why not a leggy, handsome jogger?
Last edited by Nat; 1st February 2013 at 07:22 PM.