That Tree Branch? Hello. I posted this photo to the Landscape Photography section earlier then I thought I would like some specific feedback about that dead tree branch in the...

Prof M Loc: Corvallis. OR

Hello. I posted this photo to the Landscape Photography section earlier then I thought I would like some specific feedback about that dead tree branch in the foreground. I have a mixed reaction to it: Sometimes I feel it is a distraction, but at other times I think it serves to draw the eye into the desert in a dramatic way. I would appreciate suggestions for recomposing to either eliminate, reposition, or leave the branch where it is. Thanks!

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

For me it is an unnecessary distraction in a very beautiful shot.

rwm283main Loc: Terryville, CT

BassmanBruce wrote:

For me it is an unnecessary distraction in a very beautiful shot.

I agree, it is a distraction. The tall cactus is trying to catch my eye.

Otherwise, it's a nice photo. I like the lighting.

Iron Sight Loc: Utah

It’s good as is

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Prof M wrote:

Hello. I posted this photo to the Landscape Photography section earlier then I thought I would like some specific feedback about that dead tree branch in the foreground. I have a mixed reaction to it: Sometimes I feel it is a distraction, but at other times I think it serves to draw the eye into the desert in a dramatic way. I would appreciate suggestions for recomposing to either eliminate, reposition, or leave the branch where it is. Thanks!

I'm unclear as to exactly which dead tree branch you are referring to. What I do find slightly distracting is the end of the tree branch that is ending/touching the upper part of the cactus. You may be able to clone some of it away to give a bit of clearance.

Otherwise great.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Often enough --and in particular, when they haven't been thought out in advance or purposefully included--, some elements/'things'/even particular bits or sections of tones or colors can rightfully be seen as detractions. Other times, those same 'distractions' --if included for a compositional/thematic/or purposeful reason-- may be integral, necessary, or somehow 'key' in the sense that a metaphor consists of two parts, a vehicle and a tenor, and unless both of those are present, no metaphor exists. There are many other ways to express the same concept, but ultimately, if everything that has been included in an image has a purpose, then nothing is a distraction.

Prof M Loc: Corvallis. OR

Cany143 wrote:

There are many other ways to express the same concept, but ultimately, if everything that has been included in an image has a purpose, then nothing is a distraction.

Very astute observation; now, if only I were able to apply its wisdom!

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

For me, the branch turns a pleasant evening scene into something a bit mysterious. I’d say either way works.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I'd clone out the tree branch. I think it distracts from a beautiful desertscape

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Beautiful.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Ahem....is that a sky replacement? To me that is a bigger distraction than anything having to do with or without the branch.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

As shown there is quite a lot of ambiguity in the shot. The role of the dead branch isn't clear, which is probably why you can't make up your mind about it. Perhaps if you cropped in from the left quite a bit to turn the large cactus into a framing element, the role of the branch night be a bit clearer. And you could tone down the bright distractions in the immediate foreground and off to the sides to channel the viewers' attention towards the branch and then off into the distance. The branch will probably work quite well as a dramatic framing element that deserves a bit of prominence itself.

Stephan G

Prof M wrote:

Hello. I posted this photo to the Landscape Photography section earlier then I thought I would like some specific feedback about that dead tree branch in the foreground. I have a mixed reaction to it: Sometimes I feel it is a distraction, but at other times I think it serves to draw the eye into the desert in a dramatic way. I would appreciate suggestions for recomposing to either eliminate, reposition, or leave the branch where it is. Thanks!

From some of the other posts, I am reminded of the comment I have heard some time ago. "Can't you remove some trees so that we can see the forest?" Or the converse, "Remove some of the forest so we can see the trees."

What I see is the challenge of climate transition. The changing of the guard, so to type. The tall cacti are setting a barrier to the trees as the trees cede the ground to the new reality. The clouds in the sky reiterate the change. There is the aspect of foretelling in the entire shot. And, yes, the presentation is very dynamic.

The one small adjustment I would make is to bring out the tall cacti going into the shot to suggest the posting of the forward guard.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

BassmanBruce wrote:

For me it is an unnecessary distraction in a very beautiful shot.

I would agree. However, you might experiment by removing a bunch of the branches to see if it achieves the “draw your eye” effect that you think is needed.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

I think the shot might have been better without it, but I agree with you that it does enhace the shot at a pointing item to the main cactus subject.