Especially for Mr. Mike Buckley - Misty Morning Views

Hi Christina,

I'm pleased I'm late on this one and have had the opportunity to see the edits, I very much like them. You sure like your misty scenes:)

Grahame

Hi Grahame,

Thank you. Yes, I do like misty scenes.

I also like mountain scenes but I never seem to find the right light, or I just can't manage to coordinate the beautiful pink sky I see to match the greenery on the mountains to portray the true beauty of the scene. But one day, I will do just that. It may take me a few years. :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

Hi Christina,

I'm pleased I'm late on this one and have had the opportunity to see the edits, I very much like them. You sure like your misty scenes:)

Grahame

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brownbear

I'm still not sure whether I prefer the 1st image cropped or not. It could just be because the 1st image was the only one that I was able to include the top of the trees on the left hand side.

---

Two points...

I recently saw a presentation of a former National Geographic photographer who is also the guy who made the Day in the Life of photo books. He explained that photographers tend not to be very good editors of their own work. He used the example that when we photographers work the hardest at accomplishing a particular photo, it's natural that we think it's one of our best. However, another person such as an effective editor never takes into account how much time or effort was required; only the results are considered. So, if it became for whatever reason important for you to include the top of the tall trees on the left, any decisions that might eliminate that part of the image might understandably be difficult to accept.

When I'm making a decision such as whether to include the top of the trees on the left, I ask myself what is gained and what is compromised when deciding to include them. In this particular image, nothing is gained in my mind because it's not the height of the trees that seem to be particularly important information. Even if they are considered at least somewhat important, in the first version the reflection of the top is still displayed and that conveys a sense of height even if the source is eliminated. Including the large area of sky is a significant compromise for me because that area of the image provides no helpful information. In other words, in my view the compromise doesn't justify including the tree tops.

Thank you Mike...

Great advice as always, with some wonderful points and thoughts for me to mull over. I didn't sit on these images for a while as I usually try to do, and I haven't mulled over why I'm attached to that top of the tree, and it is very likely for the very reason that I managed it.

I truly appreciate your detailed explanation of your thought process. A very helpful way to view this image, and also for me to learn from.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Two points...

I recently saw a presentation of a former National Geographic photographer who is also the guy who made the Day in the Life of photo books. He explained that photographers tend not to be very good editors of their own work. He used the example that when we photographers work the hardest at accomplishing a particular photo, it's natural that we think it's one of our best. However, another person such as an effective editor never takes into account how much time or effort was required; only the results are considered. So, if it became for whatever reason important for you to include the top of the tall trees on the left, any decisions that might eliminate that part of the image might understandably be difficult to accept.

When I'm making a decision such as whether to include the top of the trees on the left, I ask myself what is gained and what is compromised when deciding to include them. In this particular image, nothing is gained in my mind because it's not the height of the trees that seem to be particularly important information. Even if they are considered at least somewhat important, in the first version the reflection of the top is still displayed even if the source is eliminated and that conveys a sense of height. Including the large area of sky is a significant compromise for me because that area of the image provides no helpful information. In other words, in my view the compromise doesn't justify including the tree tops.

---