Or, crop it in a fashion so the branch is dominant.
bikinkawboy wrote:
If the photo was taken recently, then I’d say the photo was taken in a northerly or slightly NNE direction. The shadows on the cacti on the left and right foreground and the tall saguaro on the center right are all on the same side. As for the clouds, haven’t you ever seen a late evening sunset where a cloud on the western horizon blocks direct sunlight to some areas but not others? That’s what I see here.
I’ve seen it plenty of times in the Midwest when it starts to clear off after a thunderstorm rolls through right before sunset. That’s when you get partial rainbows in the east or nice circular rainbows with sections missing here and there. It’s a cloud on the western horizon blocking off sections of sunlight.
If the photo was taken recently, then I’d say the ... (
show quote)
I have been enjoying the analyses in some posts about the "anomalies" in the sky relative to the angle of the sun at the time I took the photo. Here are the relevant data and sources:
Source: EXIF
Date: 2020-03-15 ("The Ides....)
Time:17:44:58 MST
Source: Sun Locator Pro App (set for above date and time):
Sun Azimuth: 263.8 degrees
Sun Elevation: 6.7 degrees
Camera on level tripod pointing ~20 degrees
Cany143 wrote:
....when they haven't been thought out in advance.... some elements/'things'..... can rightfully be seen as detractions....
Further to what Cany143 says, the upper branch could be considered as a constructive element but the lower branch is a bit of a problem, and it's more than just a distraction. It obscures the distant line of hills and it splits the background into two distinct parts (and not in a good way). The dead tree as a whole isn't prominent enough to be seen as an obvious main subject, but on the other hand it's intrusive enough that it will grab the viewer's attention. With a bit more planning, the dead tree and its branches could have been incorporated more constructively and less ambiguously.
R.G. wrote:
Further to what Cany143 says, the upper branch could be considered as a constructive element but the lower branch is a bit of a problem, and it's more than just a distraction. It obscures the distant line of hills and it splits the background into two distinct parts (and not in a good way).
Thank you, R. G. I agree with you about that lower branch. I have tried all usual PS methods to remove it but it never turns out cleanly. The hills are too complex to clone.
Prof M wrote:
Thank you, R. G. I agree with you about that lower branch. I have tried all usual PS methods to remove it but it never turns out cleanly. The hills are too complex to clone.
So now you've got a good excuse for a return trip
.
JonTB
Loc: Lake Frederick, VA
No. Sky is as it was at the time I took the photo and part of the reason I took it.
JonTB
Loc: Lake Frederick, VA
My interpretation of this is a distraction would be in the eye of the viewer. It wasn't a distraction when I took the photo, but I sure wish I would have stepped forward and taken a shot without it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.