Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #3 · Gods light in Oregon-Not sure where I'm going with this |
I wouldn't concern myself with the bushes regarding crop choices as they don't pertain to the "What's the point?" "What's the message that you want to convey to your viewer?"
Bushes or no bushes, I don't base my decisions on them. Rather, relate to my message, then apply concepts of scale, mass, leading, lines, etc. to enhance or mitigate attributes as needed to best present my desired message that I want to convey. If the bushes are a detractor, then I aspire to mitigate their detraction. Cropping is one way, sharpness, blur, sat/desat, dodge/burning tonal value, etc. are additional ways to enhance/minimize the impact an area has on the image.
The fact that you "lightened" the foreground in the first one means you intentionally drew our attention more to the foreground. Why did you draw attention to the foreground, if your primary message is about the light rays?
A few things come to mind. One is my usual color correction perspective at the blue tree. The mono of course mitigates this, but I'm wondering if you neutralize the tree, you'll warm the overall, which could add some "goldenness" to the light rays or the scene in general. Two is the saturation looks a bit overcooked. Three, I think that the crop helps with the weighting @ scale/mass relative to the area for the rays (bushes or not).
Your title says a lot ... which is why I lean so heavily on "What's the point?" "What's the message that I want to convey to the viewer?" To me, it serves as your starting point at true north for making your finishing/pp decisions. Without it, it is easy to be less certain as to your direction for an image.
BTW ... I'm really diggin, the distinction of those rays. Would like to see the raw/sooc from which you are working and a bit larger also.