Arngask Trees

[Donald]

The one thing I'm particularly keen to get comments on is the composition. Does it work for you?


40D, 24-70mm f/2.8L @ 30mm. ISO100. 20s@f16. Singh Ray Vari ND

[Geoff F]

I wonder about the amount of sky; as compared to a 5 x 4 ratio crop.

But having said that, I think there is just enough variation in the sky for it to work at this size.

[Brownbear]

I adore the composition for the drama and sense of mystery... It makes me want to explore beyond the vista. Beautiful image as always.

If I may, I would like to ask where you placed your focal point. The tree tops are not a 1/3 of the way in... Is the hyperfocal point on the horizon? I recently tried a couple of compositions like this but found that placing my focal point on the lower portion was often impossible, and had to recompose.

Aside.. you have a wee dust spot near the top right hand corner

[Mike Buckley]

Love the composition and the image. Everything about the photo is so Donald (that's a compliment).

[flashback]

Donald,

The horizon appears to be tilted.... kidding of course.
I'm a bit ambivalent about this one, it's intriguing in the sense the horizon is at a tilt and the sky adds some somberosity (gravitas maybe, although neither are really words but you get my drift.)
On the other hand, seeing only the crowns of the trees (wait...crowns of the trees...are you making metaphor about royalty?) is a bit...disconcerting, not thoroughly upsetting by any means, just not used to seeing them in this way. So I guess maybe it does work for me on an off kilter kind of way.

[Donald]

Aside.. you have a wee dust spot near the top right hand corner

AAAAARRRGGGHHHH! What a stupid error. That's a result of just being sloppy.

Christina - Given that I was at f16 at 30mm, my DoF was always going to be huge. But I wanted to make sure I nailed the trees. So, using Liveview (i.e. the back screen at 10x magnification), I focused manually on the tree in the centre of the row.

That's for commenting folks, It's always good to get the perspective of others when you're not absolutely convinced yourself.

[Brownbear]

Christina - Given that I was at f16 at 30mm, my DoF was always going to be huge. But I wanted to make sure I nailed the trees. So, using Liveview (i.e. the back screen at 10x magnification), I focused manually on the tree in the centre of the row.

Thank you

[chauncey]

I like the simplicity of it, that aside...you have the slant going uphill which seems to inject some tension unto the image. Did you consider flipping it horizontally?
I ask because of one of mine features an uphill mountain.

[Shadowman]

I like the subtle diagonals in the sky which mirror the slanted horizon. Is this the Dutch Tilt I've heard about recently on this forum?

[Bobobird]

I like the lower bits.

[outwithmycamera]

I like the overall tone and softness and subtle details of this, but I have to admit that I am not keen on the composition. I don't mind the vast sky or the proportion of sky to foreground. In fact i often like 'big sky' pictures because where i grew up it was classic big sky country. I just don't like that slope. The reason is simply that I don't think there is anything that anchors that slope and places it in context of a rolling, hilly landscape. As is, it merely feels like the camera or frame has been canted at an angle to give the appearance of a slope, and I am not convinced. I think I want something in the foreground or even the midground to show me the slope is genuine and not cheesy artifice.

[Mike Buckley]

As is, it merely feels like the camera or frame has been canted at an angle to give the appearance of a slope, and I am not convinced. I think I want something in the foreground or even the midground to show me the slope is genuine and not cheesy artifice.

The trees would be tilted if the camera had been tilted. They aren't. The trees indicate that the slope is genuine.

[travis4567]

Cheesy artifice, that's a new one on here. Donald, I love when a photographer breaks all the supposed rules and comes up with a great image as you have here.

[outwithmycamera]

I understand this is a genuine slope, don't misunderstand me in that regard. I just would rather this be more strongly stated as my first reaction is to crane my neck to level things out. Otherwise, its a good image.

[Stagecoach]

It certainly works for me Donald, it has a mystery to it in that I'm wondering what's beyond plus I like the simplicity.

Interesting at the moment that we are seeing a number of tree images posted.

Grahame

[Donald]

I like the subtle diagonals in the sky which mirror the slanted horizon. Is this the Dutch Tilt I've heard about recently on this forum?

No, John. A Dutch Tilt is when you deliberatley tilt the camera (or the picture in post-processing) to create the tilt effect for artistic purposes. My one here is all natural, with the camera being straight and level.

[TonyW]

I like the simplicity of it, that aside...you have the slant going uphill which seems to inject some tension unto the image. Did you consider flipping it horizontally?
I ask because of one of mine features an uphill mountain.

I am curious as to why we see the slope going uphill. Would a left handed person see it as downhill? Should we in the Southern Hemisphere see it as downhill?

[Downrigger]

I am curious as to why we see the slope going uphill. Would a left handed person see it as downhill? Should we in the Southern Hemisphere see it as downhill?

Interesting observation. I think it is a strong illustration of a point often made about composition... my understanding is: because we all read from left to right we visualize images from left to right also. This has implications for composition. I think Donald's image would not look as interesting to us if reversed.

I think this principle would not be reversed in the southern hemisphere, but I think it very well might be in China.

[Donald]

Interesting point raised above about the possibility of flipping the image so that the slope ran down from left-to-right.

Now, I am not one for arguing that we must only reproduce what we saw. The art of photography is, for me, about creating the image that you saw in your head when you pressed the shutter, not what you saw in the viewfinder. With that being said, however, flipping a landscape shot such as this would be a 'no-go' for me. That, for me (and I emphasise this so as to ensure people don't think I'm trying to preach to others), would be too much of a change to the scene I did see before me.

[Daisy Mae]

Interesting point raised above about the possibility of flipping the image so that the slope ran down from left-to-right.

Now, I am not one for arguing that we must only reproduce what we saw. The art of photography is, for me, about creating the image that you saw in your head when you pressed the shutter, not what you saw in the viewfinder. With that being said, however, flipping a landscape shot such as this would be a 'no-go' for me. That, for me (and I emphasise this so as to ensure people don't think I'm trying to preach to others), would be too much of a change to the scene I did see before me.

That is a very interesting point and relevant to things I am doing at the minute.

Given the sometimes abstract and off the wall nature of the images I produce It was a real shock to learn that when it came to flipping images my brain/vision simply will not play. I can twist, distort, over expose, blur and tilt all I like and the brain stays true ..but flip things and it becomes very obvious that I see/read imagesleft to right and top to bottom..and there is very little flexibility for me beyond that.I'd be as well standing on my head.

Damn..I thought I was an Aaaaartist!!!!