Think I can see what you were seeking to achieve here. Clearly the beautiful colour and patterns of the pathway are shown to great effect and you have thrown the background out-of-focus with the narrower depth-of-field (although it doesn't have the EXIF attached so I couldn't tell what the DoF was).
But, there is a but!
If the aim was to capture and show the pathway, I wonder if a tigher crop would have worked better? Somewhere just about the 'knuckle' on that first tree - just as it stops going straight up and bends off to the left. That would give you a 1:1 (square picture) that I think could work.
This would focus attention exclusively onto the path and not have the distracting background competing with it, but still retain enough surrounding information to ensure that the viewer understood the context.
Just one idea - to be accepted or rejected.
If I am not mistaken the focus blur has been added PP. The end of the path is still sharp whilst the trees at the same depth are blurred and Jason has missed a bit at the top of the frame. I have been known to be wrong though(although it doesn't have the EXIF attached so I couldn't tell what the DoF was).
I agree with Donald in that I can see where you are going with this. There are however conflicting points of interest..the tree, the path, the kerb and the red leaves. For this to work you need to do what Donald is implying. Strip the compositional components down in your head and decide which is to have pride of place. If it were me I would have selected the path. At the moment the kerb is the lead in and it should most naturally be the path. So path would take centre and curve into the top third. You would need to be further down and farther out. Let the camera setting give you DoF and not worry about the end of the path being out of focus. The tree on the left would become incidental and the kerb would accompany the path rather than leading it.
Hi Jason - I'm with Donald and Steve on this - probably falling between various compositional stools. I'd go for the path with the kerb to the left. Ditch the out-of-focus bit. Also, I would probably tilt the path to the left a bit as it appears to me to tip to the right.
But, as Donald says, these are ideas for consideration.
I thought the object of the picture was to show the alternative path indicated by the red leaves leading to the observation perch on the tree. For that, the blurring is proper, to my eye.
Just as a thought i wish i was there to see why someone brought flower petals to the top of this park to set this up. I always wondered if someone led their partner up there to propose or something, using the flower petals to lead them to the ring hidden on the tree. But that's just a thought. otherwise i cant think of a reason as to why this would be set up. It seemed very recent as none of the "bread crumbs" were blown away.
Anyway. I feel that the composition isnt ideal but i just didn't know what to do with it. if anyone wants to have a go with it be my guest
But when you point them out and I look closely, I can see them all. But I suspect they stand out much more significantly for you than they do for me.
Try looking through a strong orange gel (or filter) at something white and something bright orange - they'll both look the same.
Or alternatively, try telling colours apart under strong sodium light alone.
As said by Dave. With me it's a red/green shift (which it is for most of the males affected - and it is mainly males that are affected).
So I see red and green, but a different red and green than you will be seeing.
Browns can be the real problem. For example, those of you who know the game of snooker know that there are lots of red balls and one brown ball. Can I tell the difference? I have to stare really closely for a few moments before being able to discern the difference.
Last edited by Donald; 26th October 2010 at 05:33 PM.
I'm with Donald again on this re colour deficiency - I had seen the first red leaf on the kerb, but until the matter was pointed out I had not seen the others leading along the kerb. Even now, I have to look very carefully to see them. Nowadays the condition is not known as "colour blindness" but as being an "anomalous trichromat". Brown, as Donald says, is also a major problem especially in snooker halls! However, in good sunlight, for me, it is the intensity of red that diminishes. What you must see as obvious and vivid, I see as just part of the surroundings. If pointed out I can usually see that the colour is red. When it comes to pinks and magentas - very difficult and usually impossible for me to differentiate shades. On the other hand, I did some tests and found that my blue vision may be more acute than the "normal" range - so maybe I see a blue sky more vividly than you guys do.