If I had to criticise, it would only be to say that on the left of the rose, a fairly thick slice of wood shows through the paint, which takes attention away from the subject slightly. But it's a minor point - the composition is nigh on perfect.
Thanks, Alex. I left the unpainted areas because it gave the fence character. Had they been significantly bright, I'd have burned them down. I suppose I could have used the clone stamp to finish the sloppy paint job. It's something to consider.
I'm curious on the choice of framing though. It looks like it would have been an option to have the fence diagonals coming exactly from the corners. What was the reasoning in having the diagonal coming out just below? It's a minor distraction for me, just seems that this subject could carry off that kind of perfection.
First, I have to admit composition is in the last analysis subjective, once you look beyond hide-bound Pictorialist "rules". To me what matters is does the image have a dynamic feel that pleases me. I try to compose, crop and adjust each image until it matches what my mind's eye wants it to be, within the bounds of the original capture and my PP tools and skills.
If I had to explain reasons for my intuition, I'd say to my sense of composition, the shadow of the upper cross beam and the highlighted top of the lower cross beam give the flower a dynamic sense of emerging because they are expanding when they meet the rose. With the ordinary Pictorialist "rules", the eye would be expected to follow the converging lines and be lead away from the rose. For this image I felt the suggestion of emergence over-rides the temptation to follow convergence away. Also, the converging lines were obviously not going anywhere visually interesting. Therefore, any wandering eye should be drawn back to the rose. To make the lower or upper lines meet at a corner would look to me contrived. To my sense of composition it would also unbalance the image by changing the position of the rose in the frame. Although the position of the blossom isn't at a rule of thirds nexus, for this image its position yields a stronger composition to my eyes.
Obviously, when we deal with the subjectives of a personal sense of composition, there is no absolute right or wrong. What matters to me is the visual gestalt of the image. Does the whole "work"? Does it "feel" right? Does it feel balanced? Does it express the meaning I feel for it? My sense of what's "right" is influenced by traditional visual values, but it also reflects my sense of personal visual style - how I express my intuition of what an image ought to be. (Often it's somewhat different than what the camera "saw".)
I freely admit I make photographs for my own satisfaction. An image may be right to me, but to someone with a different sense of style, it my be right or may be less than optimum. Ideally, a strong image will appeal to people with different individual styles by expressing some sort of visual common ground. I'm curious whether my visual sense resonates with others or not. When an image can be improved or doesn't work for someone, I'd like to know or know why.
Sometimes I ask for C & C because there's something amiss about an image upon which I can't put my finger. OTOH, I asked for C & C on this image *because* I was unusually pleased with it. When an image feels that right ... is perhaps when independent C & C is most useful.
Hi Karen, aka AuntiPode.
The simplicity of the image, the rose emerging thru the fence appeals to me. Feels like a bit too much space on top. I'd crop just a bit up there.
My eye is also getting drawn to the lower right corner, in part following a diagonal from shadow to flower and down right. Once in the lower right corner, something isnt working for me. The softness?
Hard to put my finger on it, but overall this one doesnt work for me, so there you go: Some conflicting reactions, but I cant tell you more why.
AuntiPode wrote:
Sometimes I ask for C & C because there's something amiss about an image upon which I can't put my finger. OTOH, I asked for C & C on this image *because* I was unusually pleased with it. When an image feels that right ... is perhaps when independent C & C is most useful.
I couldn't agree more with this. Unfortunately, I too often find that I am pleased with my images, but when I post them here, or after looking at images from so many others I realize how much I have to learn.
AuntiPode wrote:
Sometimes I ask for C & C because there's something amiss about an image upon which I can't put my finger. OTOH, I asked for C & C on this image *because* I was unusually pleased with it. When an image feels that right ... is perhaps when independent C & C is most useful.
I couldn't agree more with this. Unfortunately, I too often find that I am pleased with my images, but when I post them here, or after looking at images from so many others I realize how much I have to learn.
Ditto!
And sometimes, and I mean only sometimes, I'm suprised by more favorable reviews than anticipated.
It's good to know that seat of the pants feeling overrules the rules
For me though this shot is SO much stronger with the top diagonal hitting the top of the frame as opposed to the side, I have to say so. The shape formed, as is, draws my eye up into a nothing space. I might trim a little off the right too.
I can see exactly why you went for the first crop now, that shadow under the beam does push down on the rose. I can see what people mean by a dark bit of a photo being heavy now.
But now i do look at the rose and not the composition. That could be because i'm thinking about photographs ALL the damn time though and to someone else the original might be absolutely fine.
I think the 3rd of these alternatives works best for me personally, and the square crop is lovely too. An improvement on the original, for me anyway.
The advantage of the third is that the rose is larger. For me the original works best when viewed large. As a small image the impact of the rose is less. OTOH, what I wanted in the original was the feeling of escape and basking in the light. For that it needs more space at the top. Complex trade-offs. The third is a better rose. The original a better escape.
Last.
I was thinking that this image may be stronger as a print than how I see it on screen. But the first has the rose looking a bit lost, anemic to me.
