More Furrowed Fields

[Donald]

Following on from the images and discussion in this thread, this is another from the same shoot. Once I get into an idea, I do like exploring it. We've seen that done to a very high standard on here before (Mike Buckley's work with glass is a prime example).

There are a another couple to come along after this one. But in the meantime, your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

[NorthernFocus]

Aha! More like what I was thinking when I commented on the other thread. Bravo. Well done.

Isn't it amazing how brilliant things seem when they match one's own opinion

[Donald]

Isn't it amazing how brilliant things seem when they match one's own opinion

Two great minds acting as one!!

[bnnrcn]

This image works for me too as there is less sky than the one in the other thread I think the image needs a very little rotation. Although there is not a certain horizon line, the image looks a bit tilted and it is noticeable because of the very small portion of the sky .

[Mike Buckley]

It would be interesting to learn why you included the tree in the top right area.

[NorthernFocus]

Two great minds acting as one!!

[Donald]

It would be interesting to learn why you included the tree in the top right area.

I felt it gave an anchor point and a sense of scale, Mike.

I've been studying the work of others lately and have reappraised my previously held views that you should never do something like this; i.e. put an object half-in/half-out of the frame, particularly in such a position. I felt that without it there the image was very bland. For me it raised the interest level.

[Mike Buckley]

While I agree that the image would be bland without that tree, that speaks to me more about the rest of the image especially compared to the other two images; I don't think the tree is so helpful that it successfully rescues the image. For me, the very first image is stronger than this one because the information at the horizon line is more successful. Similarly, the second image is also stronger for me because the diagonal position of the lines is stronger than this image's position that is relatively straight on.

[Daisy Mae]

I don't think the tree is so helpful that it successfully rescues the image. For me, the very first image is stronger than this one because the information at the horizon line is more successful. Similarly, t

I don't think it is there to 'rescue' anything...for me at least the contrast and roundness of the tree with the strict lines of furrows and horizon..actually 'makes' the shot..without in any way becoming an intrusion or distraction.

I find it sensitively handled and it reminds me of American photographs and art where the presence of a round object..such as a barn..in an offset position is used as counterpoint to increase the impact of the harshness in the land.

Just my thoughts...

[terrib]

I really like the previous image. I like, as Mike said, the more diagonal position of the furrows. I also think that the objects in the other do a better job of providing scale, although I don't have any issue with the tree or it's position in this one. Mostly, I like that there is more detail in the shadows in the other. This one goes too dark for my taste. And for some reason that I can't articulate, the scale of the foreground looming makes me uncomfortable. Maybe that is tension that you intended but it went over the edge for me. These are just comparisons. I always enjoy viewing your work.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.