I love the treatment you used on the "Wet Leaf on Split Oak" photo. The tone is spot on and the adjustments to emphasize the veins really works. Also, the soft overhead light reflected in the water cupped in the leaf and reflected off the leaf itself is great, I think it's a much better look than would be achieved on a sunny day with the sun acting as a point source of light.
I suggest you try a crop and see what you think. Crop it into a horizontal. Crop just above the stem on the leaf behind the main leaf. Crop just below the OOF leaf in the foreground. Crop a little from the left. Crop as much as you feel comfortable from the right. Take a look at the results. Describe the differences and decide which you prefer.
I think I'd like to see the small leaf in the foreground either sharper or not there. It would be a gread exercise for a 4x5 view, you could change the plain of focus by tilting the lens.
dmacmillan wrote:
Bob,
No that you cropped it tighter, which do you prefer?
At first glance, the version with the leaf remaining seems to give me a greater sense of stability, but, after several more glances, the second, sans leaf, is a cleaner aesthetic. So, I'd say they both work but the I prefer the second.
And you? Others' thoughts?
Bob
Later, looking again, I've changed my mind - the leaf breaks up the negative space and spine of the leaf points toward the central subject. Too, it forms the third point of a triangle helping anchor the image. Maybe I'm over analyzing :
Bob Jarman wrote:
- the leaf breaks up the negative space and spine of the leaf points toward the central subject.
Over analyzing, "Nope" ... Recognizing (balance and leading lines) "Yup".
Analysis ... "Nailed It !!!" (imo).
Besides the fact that I was too lazy to try and remove the leaf (also fearing my technical deficiencies would muck it up), it does change the dynamic of how the eye moves in the frame with it in vs. out.
I tried to approach it by leaving (no pun) it in and considering other ways to draw the eye to the subject via tonal value and color variation and sharpening (pick your tools of choice) without giving up the two points that you have done well to identify.
The thing I like about it is that your eye has a path to travel to get there ... AND ... once it gets there, it has something to study and KEEP it there. THEN, after some study of the subject (i.e. first) the eye can go searching around to study the rest of the scene, and the scene will still return the eye to the subject.
In this regard, it kinda reminds me of Scotts boots and Karens silhouetted seascape (right after she moved). They too had that "take me there", "keep me there", "let me wander" and "bring me back". Theirs aren't the only ones we've seen do this, but for me, images that can do this are very well done.
I wasn't speaking so much of the foreground leaf there or not there, I was interested in your opinions of the crop. Speaking of the crop, personally, I like it cropped tighter (natch). I think it really makes the big leaf the star of the show with less "busy-ness" in the background.
Regarding the foreground leaf, I don't think there's a right and wrong answer. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be a distraction in the tighter crop. It's your image and it should be your call. Either way, I like it.
I have to keep reminding myself that I don't need to hop in the car and drive to the mountains or to the seashore to find good subjects, that they can be literally in my back yard. Your photo is a great reminder!
RustyBug wrote:
Over analyzing, "Nope" ... Recognizing (balance and leading lines) "Yup".
Analysis ... "Nailed It !!!" (imo).
Besides the fact that I was too lazy to try and remove the leaf (also fearing my technical deficiencies would muck it up), it does change the dynamic of how the eye moves in the frame with it in vs. out.
I tried to approach it by leaving (no pun) it in and considering other ways to draw the eye to the subject via tonal value and color variation and sharpening (pick your tools of choice) without giving up the two points that you have done well to identify.
The thing I like about it is that your eye has a path to travel to get there ... AND ... once it gets there, it has something to study and KEEP it there. THEN, after some study of the subject (i.e. first) the eye can go searching around to study the rest of the scene, and the scene will still return the eye to the subject.
In this regard, it kinda reminds me of Scotts boots and Karens silhouetted seascape (right after she moved). They too had that "take me there", "keep me there", "let me wander" and "bring me back". Theirs aren't the only ones we've seen do this, but for me, images that can do this are very well done.
dmacmillan wrote:
I wasn't speaking so much of the foreground leaf there or not there, I was interested in your opinions of the crop. Speaking of the crop, personally, I like it cropped tighter (natch). I think it really makes the big leaf the star of the show with less "busy-ness" in the background.
Regarding the foreground leaf, I don't think there's a right and wrong answer. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be a distraction in the tighter crop. It's your image and it should be your call. Either way, I like it.
I have to keep reminding myself that I don't need to hop in the car and drive to the mountains or to the seashore to find good subjects, that they can be literally in my back yard. Your photo is a great reminder!...Show more →
Thanks for your analysis Doug, the tighter crop does help (sometimes I think I crop too tight but that is another matter).
Re backyard: absolutely. Once saw a "visualization assignment" on a site - Spend a week taking images only in your yard. Not a great deal of variety this time of year but still plenty of subjects.
The small leaf by comparison tells us the scale of the larger one. That story element is missing if cloned out.
If viewed as in person from bottom foreground to top background do you want the viewer to stop at the leaf? If so you if you crop tighter on top to give the eye nowhere else to go the viewer will stop there. Big gaps invite exploration — you must have put that space there for a reason, or so the viewer will think. But the net effect is the gap pulls attention off the focal point and up / out the top of the photo with the strong contrast / leading line.
(also fearing my technical deficiencies would muck it up), it does change the dynamic of how the eye moves in the frame with it in vs. out. 