hello, thanks for posting both the pictures of this bridge. the first, the north shore view is a visually strong picture with the trees being the central subjects. the bridge is in the background and adds interest to the picture, but the trees are the attention getters. great job of processing that picture. this picture uses a strong foreground interest with the rocks leading to the bridge in the background. the water falling below the bridge has strong detailed vertical lines that really mesh well with the vertical boards on the bridge. the trees by the right end of the bridge are a good contrast to the lighter left side with the clouds in the sky. my only nit with the picture is the tall skinny bare tree that dominates the left side. to me, it just doesn't fit well. if you make it back there again and have the time, try getting this picture from alittle further up the bank without tree being in it. i am not trying to offend you. i do appreciate you getting out and taking these pictures. first and foremost is how you feel about them. if you are happy with them, that is all that matters. thanks for sharing.
I disagree with volhoosier' s comment on this image.
For me the strongly horizontal emphasis of the main subject needs the framing of the trees - both bare and those still with leaves - and the angles of the clouds and the diagonal rock shadow in the foreground to frame the bridge and the falling water and to draw the eye around the image and then back to the central theme.... otherwise it would be too static and quickly lose interest.
One of the best things about any art is that different eyes see different balances, patterns and emphases and that is what keeps us working "to get it right" ... for each of us.
volhoosier wrote:
hello, thanks for posting both the pictures of this bridge. the first, the north shore view is a visually strong picture with the trees being the central subjects. the bridge is in the background and adds interest to the picture, but the trees are the attention getters. great job of processing that picture. this picture uses a strong foreground interest with the rocks leading to the bridge in the background. the water falling below the bridge has strong detailed vertical lines that really mesh well with the vertical boards on the bridge. the trees by the right end of the bridge are a good contrast to the lighter left side with the clouds in the sky. my only nit with the picture is the tall skinny bare tree that dominates the left side. to me, it just doesn't fit well. if you make it back there again and have the time, try getting this picture from alittle further up the bank without tree being in it. i am not trying to offend you. i do appreciate you getting out and taking these pictures. first and foremost is how you feel about them. if you are happy with them, that is all that matters. thanks for sharing....Show more →
I must ask: someone from Tennessee living in Indiana? Or, a Tennessee-Indiana marriage? Locally one occasionally sees GA-GaTech and AUB-BAMA auto tags.
I appreciate your detailed analysis. For me, the solitary tree holds the eye in the image, i.e. serves as a delimiter to wandering off the frame. I debated whether to remove but chose to stay with reality.
I too prefer the first image, with the two trees. Maybe a stretch but I wonder the influence of the title on one's perception of the image. If the title were perhaps 'Two Trees' would the reception differ, i.e. remove the notion of trees obstructing the view of the subject, the bridge?
---------------------------------------------
krug wrote:
I disagree with volhoosier' s comment on this image.
For me the strongly horizontal emphasis of the main subject needs the framing of the trees - both bare and those still with leaves - and the angles of the clouds and the diagonal rock shadow in the foreground to frame the bridge and the falling water and to draw the eye around the image and then back to the central theme.... otherwise it would be too static and quickly lose interest.
One of the best things about any art is that different eyes see different balances, patterns and emphases and that is what keeps us working "to get it right" ... for each of us....Show more →
hello again, one of the really neat things about photography is that people will get different perspectives and impressions about a photograph. it is important to understand and appreciate that we can agree to disagree about a photograph with no hurt feelings or animosity felt. a person's creativity and vision of the photograph should not be hampered by the thoughts of others. be true to yourself. they are both photographs that show excellent technique and thought put into them.
as to my forum name, volhoosier. you are spot on. i am from tenn and have lived in indiana for 35 yrs. my wife is from indiana, so your deductive reasoning would make sherlock holmes smile.
volhoosier wrote:
hello again, one of the really neat things about photography is that people will get different perspectives and impressions about a photograph. it is important to understand and appreciate that we can agree to disagree about a photograph with no hurt feelings or animosity felt. a person's creativity and vision of the photograph should not be hampered by the thoughts of others. be true to yourself. they are both photographs that show excellent technique and thought put into them.
as to my forum name, volhoosier. you are spot on. i am from tenn and have lived in indiana for 35 yrs. my wife is from indiana, so your deductive reasoning would make sherlock holmes smile....Show more →
