Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The current issue of Outdoor Photographer magazine has an article called, “The Power of Visualization” by Michael Frye. In it he talks about a waterfall he shot: “This image was all about form, shape and texture. Color would only have distracted from those qualities, so before even pressing the shutter, I visualized this photograph in black and white.”

Here is one of many photos I took one February morning, in which my express goal was to showcase shapes, lines and shadows - with no plan to use color whatsoever. I over-exposed the images because I wanted very little snow detail + I further enhanced that idea in pp.

Regarding composition, I was drawn to what was, for me, an attractive look of the slightly curved foreground fence, then this large empty space which stood out against the tall trees and mountains in the background. I hoped to capture a feeling of somewhat pristine and silent landscape, rather spacious and empty, even with the constraints of the fencing.

I would greatly appreciate your feedback on whether I met my goal. Thanks so much!

(Download)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Linda, As one who would like to participate helpfully in this conversation, I have to acknowledge that you, yourself, set several goals and you made this image . Your goals...your creative product in pursuit of fulfilling your goals. How do you feel you did? Then let's go from there. If it did fulfill your goals and aspirations, That's it. Matte and frame that sucker and enter in a show!
But if you are uncertain ...then do you need to reconsider your goals, or, on the other hand, to reconsider your image as to why it doesn't meet your goals. To be of help, we need to know where you...you...need to begin.

If, on the other hand, you want us to tell you if you met your goals, you are expecting us to interpret your goals in our terms, and then to objectively critique the image in terms of our interpretation of your goals. It will work better to start with you, rather than with us.

(I'm really hoping this can be helpful....and am willing to jump in where you think it would be most productive. Others can...and should...state their opinions.)

Dave

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I am quite satisfied that you achieved exactly what you wanted, "...pristine and silent landscape, rather spacious and empty..." I think it's well executed and works perfectly in B&W. The thing (here it comes :? ) that bothers me is the foreground fence. It completely blocks me from entering the scene. I can't look much at the beauty in the distance because the foreground fence stops the eye, and me from entering and trying to slog across to the next fence. I see what you were after! But I don't care much for that foreground fence. It would work for me if it had a gate, especially if the gate were open.

Had I made the picture I might try cropping out the first fence, but then I suspect it would ruin the well-balanced composition. So I might just select the whole area and do a content-aware fill or something to see what it looks like deleted. Just a thought! :thumbup:

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I'll give it a try!

This is one of several of your images that have reminded me of music scores, so you'll have to forgive if I over identify with that simile along the way.

Pristine condition does come across, uninterrupted whiteness of land and sky marked only by the "notes" of tree and fencing. with a bit of framing from the mountain to serve as the only upper anchor. Vastness of the landscape is also suggested, though I wonder if there is too much of the white between the rows of the "score", and whether closing that gap "artificially" might help with balance.

You gave up (to overexposure and post) more detail from sky than from snow, where it is light but evident. I think it works for this image, because of the graphic nature of it.

Were I designing a perfect scene, I might have wished an open gate, slightly right of center, to let me go through. But that would have been another picture, wouldn't it?

Though you didn't mention geometry, you did mention lines and shapes, so I'll add that I'd be sorely tempted to address the verticals of those trees, even though in "life" I am sure they are bent in the usual wind direction. For the purposes of the image lines, they would be more appealing a tad more vertical.

All in all, I think you've accomplished your stated goal, and created an image that is beyond photograph, but has rhythm and math interwoven into it. I'd also invite you to apply Peter's graphical Golden Ratio overlay to your image (the one in the Masters' thread) and subsequent changes to see what it tells you. Pretty interesting!

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

My feelings are on this Linda if you need to ask then your uncertain if you have reached your goals. And your goals are not very clear.
The pursuit of shapes lines and shadows could have been achieved in the garden with no need to drive to this God forsaken place place you have snapped.
Michael Frye is a superb photographer but I have never seen him publish a work such as yours. Could this just be magazine article fodder rather than something he really does as a photographer?
I ask as his work I have seen is packed with impact whereas if you have reproduced his suggestions in his article its totally without impact.
I sorta feel articles are scribbled down by well known names to sell magazines not because they have any actual use or meaning?
As min says this is beyond photography its a graphic so was that one of your goals?

Bill_de Loc: US

It does have a closed gate all the way on the right.

--

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

It's not the kind of thing I'm tempted to do (yet) but for me I think a little more contrast to bring out the shapes might help my glimmers.

Not knowing the layout of the land or the passage of the sun I wonder whether a later shot, or a different angle might place the shadows in front of the fences.

conkerwood

Goal 1: showcase shapes, lines and shadows
Goal 2: capture a feeling of somewhat pristine and silent landscape, rather spacious and empty

'Showcases' is a somewhat imprecise term and I am not really sure what you mean. Certainly the pic has strong linear elements both horizontal and vertical. I see an emphasis on rectangular shapes in the composition, the details of the fence and the implied thin rectangle in which the mountains fit. The shadows give depth and emphasise the intensity of the light. If all of that is showcasing then you achieved you first goal.

'Pristine' you have achieved by minimising details in the snow and the fact that there are no tracks or traces of life. The experience that we as a viewer bring is that open undisturbed country usually goes with silence, it feels spacious, its clearly empty: the wide expanse of near white, negative space, across the centre emphasises the emptiness. So clearly.... second goal achieved.

Now my question, framed in the context of previous postings.... by responding in detail only in the terms of the goals you set have I contributed to your growth as a photographer? I suspect not! And I say that because I think you have not asked what are the more important, bigger questions which are related to the quality of your pic. (sorry Dave, back to Persig and Phaedrus again)

Such questions as:
1) Have the goals I set for myself resulted in a pic which has impact, is well composed and is technically well executed? (Yes I am quoting Billy)
2) Do people viewing my pic get what I was trying to do? If so why so? If not why not?
3) Have my goals maximised the potential of the scene in front of me or have my preconceptions limited that potential?

Putting this in the context of previous postings about changing the focus of critique I understand where you may want to go. I have been a teacher and mentor for most of my life and I know the value of nurturing others by helping them to achieve their goals, not my goals but their goals. But that can only happen through developing a trusted, one to one relationship over time. Certainly that can be developed online, and the suggested use of P.M. is a mechanism which is useful. But asking for feedback only in terms of the poster's goals within the constraints of UHH does not equate to mentoring. Despite good intentions it leads to the situation where in a critique I may say 'well done, you achieved your goals' but I feel constrained to say 'but despite that your pic doesn't work for the following reasons.'

And here I feel I have to agree with Billy. 'For Your Consideration' covers it all. When you post here you are going to get some insightful feedback, some thumbs up/down rubbish, and some egotistical twaddle. But what you will always get is someone else's perspective on your work, in their terms which you can choose to take note of or reject. That is what contributes to the growth of a photographer, someone elses's view, good bad or indifferent.

So in the end I do think there is merit in providing background to a pic. Explain why you did what you did, what you were trying to achieve etc. Then write 'FYC' and allow people to respond as they choose without trying to direct them. Honest and open feedback, with no constraint other than politeness..... that's why this section works so well and that's why I continue to hang here. Some of the responses are crap, some make you feel good and every now and then one or two give you the enthusiasm to see something just a little differently. The skill is in putting ego aside and finding the gold amongst the dross.

Peter

trc Loc: Logan, OH

Greetings Linda,

When I first looked at your image just on UHH, I honestly did not care for what I saw and didn't think you achieved anything. I moved on and then came back, downloaded it, and then looked again. I do like the foreground curve in the fence. It then comes to a triangular opening of two fence lines that gives me the impression/feeling that your image is opening up for more to come.

Then, I start looking across the field (which I believe is lacking in detail rather than opening up) and it hits a straight, horizontal fence that gives me the impression or feeling to Stop/Halt! I then look beyond that fence and see a completely different picture. An orchard in the front and then tall wind break trees and majestic mountains, clouds, and then open sky.

To me, I feel as if I am looking at two separate and different photos in one image. I guess I feel like that blank, lifeless, lack of contrast and detail open field I am crossing does not promote me venturing on in the same image - I think I am describing my thoughts correctly. What do you think about what I described about the two photos in one image?

I love that first fence and how it slopes downhill from camera right to left and then 'opens up.' Perhaps, if you had more detail in the open snow covered field to that horizontal fence and then stopped just showing the 'orchard' it would be more of a complete photo rather than continuing on to the tall trees and the mountains, the clouds, and the sky, which to me causes confusion? Is that what you were trying to achieve?

Best Regards,
Tom

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I have been away from the computer since yesterday afternoon and just woke up - lol - so have just skimmed these responses, but I see some wonderfully thoughtful comments that will require time to digest and respond to, especially in terms of how to get the most from a new way to critique :)

I will be back in touch later, and again, I am so very grateful to those who took the time to give indepth analysis, and ask questions that encourage learning for not only myself, but everyone here. Thank you!

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Good morning Linda. I think you have the start to something more interesting than what you have here. I look at this picture and see two things: composition and a lot of white. The fence in the foreground works for me but I wonder how the scene would look if done as a panorama. The current framing creates tension for me because the fence is cut off at both ends. I have the urge to see more but cannot.

All that high-key stuff does not work for me. I have never been a fan of the washed-out look and would rather see more detail. Bear in mind that both comments are esthetic in nature, not technical. Merely a matter of taste and not a right versus wrong judgement.

I look forward to your response.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

The photo DOES have a gate--look closely on the right side. It's closed, but it's a gate. By the way, I like the foreground fence because it gives the photo a sense of depth.

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

I think you met your goals for this photo. The photo does convey, to me, a feeling of cold, quiet serenity. "Space" can be powerful, in a photo and its composition, but it is not always easy to accomplish.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks to you both. I did not see that gate (possibly because it is closed).

I think the fence does indeed give the picture a sense of depth. I think the picture is nothing if not intriguing. Every time I come back to it, it grows on me. There is a sense of mystery. Maybe I am wrong about the closed fence. Tom was bothered by the second fence giving a sense of stop/halt. I thought that about the first fence, but the more I consider (what we're here for, eh :thumbup: ) the more I find myself liking the fact that I cannot "go there." There are lots of barriers in life. Why does the proverbial chicken cross? Mallory said "Because it's there." He went and it killed him. The chicken was hit by a bus. There are barriers we cannot or should not cross, and perhaps cross them at our peril (oh lordy he's off his meds again). :shock:

The thing is, we are supposed (I think) to be discussing whether Linda met her stated goals (I believe she did). I initially did not like the picture very much, plus I succumbed to an ancient compositional "rule" I was taught at the beginning of recorded time that Thou Shalt Not Have Something Across Your Foreground That Prevents Your Viewer From "Entering." Except that on revisiting the picture I now conclude that I like the mystery of it. So now I'm really off the rails and I will go away now. :shock: :mrgreen:

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

I hoped to capture a feeling of somewhat pristine and silent landscape, rather spacious and empty, even with the constraints of the fencing.
......................................

I think you accomplished that. But I don't like the "stripes" lines. The first blocks, the open space doesn't connect the first fence to the far fence (it almost looks like two images to me, the front part and the back part). So, my eye jumps the first fence, gets lost in the white, and hits the second blocking fence.

Spacious, empty, YES, but to my poor claustrophobic mind, not open. I like leading lines but not blocking lines. (but now we are talking about me, not you).

Now about silent... to me the blocking lines create a not-so-silent BOOM every time I run into one. I like the idea of a large expanse with a single cow, or a single bird, or a single tree - I love the flow of the clouds, giving the impression of "silence of the wind", but the blocking BOOMS keep me bumbling about making noise. (I bet you can tell I don't like fences! - LOL)