AzPicLady wrote:
Two-track roads take us to the most marvelous places! Love 'em.
I really like this picture. I like that you placed the tree dead center. It truly is the hero in the scene. I love the sky. I do have a question. I know you plan out your pictures carefully, so I'm curious about the amount of foreground. I do like it, but, frankly, if I had been recording the scene, I would probably have not included so more foreground. I'd like to know your thinking in doing so.
Don't know that I could provide a rational, absolute answer, APL, but I can describe my d'ruthers. And those are that I like/prefer/usually try to include whatever close-in foreground elements that might be relevant and 'organic' in/to a setting or a scene. Lights and darks, colors and tones, and where and how these are placed in a composition are factors as well, and whatever perspective (up/down/level/near/far) I chose will obviously vary from scene to scene. I might 'think' about some of those factors in advance when practical matters (weather/time of day/direction of light in the place/area I'm going, etc.) are generally predictable, but the unexpected happens, too, and pre-conceived ideas not uncommonly get changed or get scrapped altogether.
I know this tree, and I know the area in which it sits. I've been there and shot it in one variation or another a number of times before. But to me, it's not a "tree", and the grasses are not a "foreground", and the low rocky rise on the horizon is not "something I couldn't dis-include". Because to me, "subjects" are not the items or things or even the places in front of my camera. That's because my "subjects" are ideas and allegories and metaphors and sometimes even symbols, not "trees" or "rocks" or "mountains" or "whatever" seems "pretty" at the time.
Cany143 wrote:
Out a two-track road, not far past 'The Knoll' and not far before 'Beehive Butte' comes into sight, a couple hours ago.
Twenty separate images/exposures, Pep Ventosa-ed out of a 4.49 Gb stack in Ps, and into what might for all purposes have otherwise have a 'SOOC' snapshot.
But shooting this (these, and others) wasn't without a modicum of frustration, though. I had a particular 'take' on what I'd planned, but it was far too windy to put my drone up in the air. Rats!
…if you told me this was from the Serengeti National Park I would believe you…excellent work…!
Very nice, great composition.
Cany143 wrote:
Out a two-track road, not far past 'The Knoll' and not far before 'Beehive Butte' comes into sight, a couple hours ago.
Twenty separate images/exposures, Pep Ventosa-ed out of a 4.49 Gb stack in Ps, and into what might for all purposes have otherwise have a 'SOOC' snapshot.
But shooting this (these, and others) wasn't without a modicum of frustration, though. I had a particular 'take' on what I'd planned, but it was far too windy to put my drone up in the air. Rats!
So simple, yet so incredible.
Cany143 wrote:
Don't know that I could provide a rational, absolute answer, APL, but I can describe my d'ruthers. And those are that I like/prefer/usually try to include whatever close-in foreground elements that might be relevant and 'organic' in/to a setting or a scene. Lights and darks, colors and tones, and where and how these are placed in a composition are factors as well, and whatever perspective (up/down/level/near/far) I chose will obviously vary from scene to scene. I might 'think' about some of those factors in advance when practical matters (weather/time of day/direction of light in the place/area I'm going, etc.) are generally predictable, but the unexpected happens, too, and pre-conceived ideas not uncommonly get changed or get scrapped altogether.
I know this tree, and I know the area in which it sits. I've been there and shot it in one variation or another a number of times before. But to me, it's not a "tree", and the grasses are not a "foreground", and the low rocky rise on the horizon is not "something I couldn't dis-include". Because to me, "subjects" are not the items or things or even the places in front of my camera. That's because my "subjects" are ideas and allegories and metaphors and sometimes even symbols, not "trees" or "rocks" or "mountains" or "whatever" seems "pretty" at the time.
Don't know that I could provide a rational, absolu... (
show quote)
Thanks. You have given me a thought-provoking answer.
Beautiful image. I love the expansive foreground.
I like it. It is simple but very nice
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.