Landscape

[RSL]

I keep coming across this one in my archives from late March, and I keep liking it even though it strikes me as being merely pretty.

[jeffreybehr]

For me, it lacks a clear subject.  I would have, instead of shooting the fence, walked closer and shot over the fence.

[RSL]

Then you'd have lost the little tree camera left that gives it some balance.

[Rainer SLP]

Then you'd have lose the little tree camera left that gives it some balance.

I understand your point, but you have there 3 main objects fighting each for being the main object in the image.

My eyes are wandering from the tree to the silo, to the barn and so on and they never stop. I call images like this nervous, I do not find a point where to rest my eyes.

Nice natural colours.

Did you make more shots from different positions of this scene ?

[RSL]

My eyes are wandering from the tree to the silo, to the barn and so on. . .

Exactly what they're supposed to do.

[jeffreybehr]

Exactly what they're supposed to do.

Russ, you posted this in Critiques and then reject the one you received from two different people.

My (and Ranier SLP's, too, apparently) eyes aren't wandering appreciably about the image concentrating on details, they're flitting about looking for something to rest on.  It is indeed a 'nervous' image because it has no clear subject...as in...fence?  Yuk; that ugly thing can't be the subject. 
The barn?  Ya, the barn...but I can't see much of that.  Must be the silos.  Nope...can't see much of those hiding behind the fence and that tree.

Obviously, I wasn't there, and it's not MY pic.  But I suggest you read and think about, instead of reject, the critiques YOU ask for.   

[RSL]

Hi Jeffrey,

How did you come to the conclusion I'm "rejecting" critiques. As I said when I posted the picture, I keep passing by this picture in my archives because it strikes me as merely pretty, "merely" being the operative word. But I still like it. Since I've been a pretty serious photographer and enthusiastic visual art aficionado for about 72 years it seems to me I ought to be able to understand why I like it. I don't really, but I still like it

If I shoot over the fence I lose the balancing tree on the left. Pointing that out isn't "rejecting" your critique. It's commenting on it. Actually, what you're suggesting is that there HAS to be a specifically selected, tight point of focus in a picture for it to hang together. In street photography I'd agree with you. In landscape I don't. In this picture your eye goes almost immediately to the barn and then follows the leading line of the trees to the silos. Rainer has a problem with that and evidently doesn't want his eyes to move away from some fixed point. He should check out, say, Constable's "The Hay Wain." If you're an "obsessed landscape fotografer" as you claim to be, you should be familiar with it. It's a hell of a lot better picture than this one ever will be, but your eye flits from the guy with the white shirt in the water to the house, to the dog, and to the trees and sky. Your eye tends to come back to the farmer, but that's because he's human. (Which is one reason street photography is so much more effective than landscape photography.) Oh, by the way, for some reason I rather like the fence, though, again I can't say why.

But having said all that, I'd also encourage you to continue being critical. Blunted critiques to avoid hurt feelings are a problem I've been seeing in User Critiques since I first jumped into it.

[degrub]

I'm no expert at this, but the fence is what creates tension in the scene for me. I remember many a hot dry day in OK retreating to the cool darkness of the miking barn.
Frank

[Rainer SLP]

Rainer has a problem with that and evidently doesn't want his eyes to move away from some fixed point. He should check out, say, Constable's "The Hay Wain."

Hi RSL,

Followed your advice, because I want to learn and not because I should !, and did take a look at the " The Hay Wain " and found it quite interesting in composition



and found some differences to your " The Hidden Barn "

BTW way the title " Landscape " makes me expect something else and perhaps that led us to have a different view of the image from the very beginning on. A title like " The Old Barn " " 3 Brothers " " The Great Fence " would have influenced us before seeing the image and maybe we would have seen it in another context ?

First in " The Hay Wain " there are only 2 interesting objects and the one which draws the most attention is, as the title says, " The Hay Wain " because there IS the action accentuated by the smaller tree pointing right down onto it, the Wain. The barn is by far in the second plane just as a complement in that rural landscape.

Now coming to your Landscape

Yes, the eye goes directly into the center of the image, sees the barn and immediately goes away from it because there is no WOW,

Next, I see is the lonely tree on the left side shining out becasue the contrast between tree and sky is strong, but, yes but, the tree is boring

So my eye wanders to the next possible WOW omitting the barn and I see the 3 silos standing there, but no WOW due to the fact that there is a half bold tree with some yellow flowers covering up the silos, so far so good, my eyes have scanned the wholw image, again, again and again and nowhere found a WOW.

The fence, well is a fence.

That is the way I see yout Landscape image,

Now, never been there and never will go there, but that little piece of Landscape has amazing possibilities to shoot an outstanding image, IMHO ( In My Humble Opinion )

for example

Go near to the fence and shoot over the fence and put the barn in an interesting position

Go near the fence and shoot the 3 silos in a vertical format avoiding the tree with the yellow flowers

Go near the fence, use a wide open aperture and shoot the yellow flowering tree and keep the silos with a tremendous unsharp bokeh as a background.

Stand near the fence (test different distances ) and shoot towards that little tree on the left side and use the fence as a eye guiding line to the tree

Just a few ideas which came to my mind.

saludos Rainer


We all have different ways to see things

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Pointing that out isn't "rejecting" your critique. It's commenting on it...

+1

Btw, nothing wrong with "rejecting" a critique. That is called a debate, a difference of opinion. Which is not the same as rejecting someone's right to critique.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... there is no WOW
... no WOW
...nowhere found a WOW.

WOW!

That's the problem with a lot of modern landscape photography: the tyranny of spectacular. As if our goal has become to out-WOW each other. Impress the viewer. Shock and awe him. The problem with the WOW-factor is that it works the first couple of times, than we become desensitized, and need even greater spectacle next time.

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

...the problem with a lot of modern landscape photography: the tyranny of spectacular. As if our goal has become to out-WOW each other. Impress the viewer. Shock and awe him.

Shoot for you. Problem solved.

[Rainer SLP]

WOW!

That's the problem with a lot of modern landscape photography: the tyranny of spectacular. As if our goal has become to out-WOW each other. Impress the viewer. Shock and awe him. The problem with the WOW-factor is that it works the first couple of times, than we become desensitized, and need even greater spectacle next time.

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan,

Shoot for you. Problem solved.

Now I have to adopt your forum style ( :

Robert,

What do you mean by "shoot for you"? Or is it just my English that is lacking?

EDIT: Oh, you probably mean to shoot (photograph) only for myself, not others? That is ok, it is just that art (like sex) is meant to be shared.

[RSL]

Hi Rainer,

Wow. That's quite an analysis. Good for you. I have some problems with your explication, but I'm happy to see you take the trouble to analyze the pictures. If more of the people who post on LuLa would do that kind of thing, the quality of the postings might improve.

First off, I've never claimed my picture is a success. I've been passing by it in my archives for months, though it always stopped me for a moment before I moved on. From the standpoint of formal, rule based, composition it's a loser. But I still like it, probably because of the colors, especially the bright phlox on this side of the fence.

Let's take a look at your analysis. Your problem with the word "landscape" makes me suspect you see landscape exclusively as nature in the raw. In other words, if man or the hand of man shows in the picture it's not "landscape." That would explain your problem with the lack of a title that would have "influenced" you to see it in "another context." Fair enough. Let's change the title to "Rural Spring in All its Glory." That better? That lets us leave in the fence and doesn't require us to select a particular object as the center of focus.

Regarding "The Hay Wain," I'd disagree about the number of "interesting" objects in the picture. There are several. Your eye jumps immediately to the guy in the white shirt -- for two reasons: he's human and his shirt is the brightest spot in the picture. The fact that he's located near the center of the picture doesn't hurt either. I question whether or not the tree behind him has much to do with it. Yes, it's a leading line, but it's too soft and dark to be very effective. Then your eye moves to the dog on the bank of the river. Why? Because he's alive and because he has a large patch of white. Next your eye jumps to the spot where the sun is hitting the house -- the hand of man. After that your eye sweeps the trees, the fields and the sky. When you stand back and look at the whole scene it grabs you -- because of the colors, the composition, especially the disposition of tones -- bright and dark.

"The Hay Wain" is a magnificent example of landscape. It's infinitely more effective than landscape that avoids the hand of man (Ansel?), because for humans the hand of man always is the most interesting thing in any picture. It may be different if you're a deer or a bear.

Now on to my own not-so-great great picture. Whether or not the barn is a "WOW" is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but the point is a "so what" because the barn isn't the point of the picture. That poor little tree on the left doesn't think it's "boring. But boring or not it does tend to balance the composition. In fact the layout is almost exactly the reverse of the layout in "The Hay Wain." At least I got that right. I'd agree that the silos aren't a "WOW," though they are quite beautiful and made even more so by the lacy, flowery tree that subdues their sharpness. As you say, the fence is a fence. I like it, and you're welcome to dislike it. I suspect most people would agree with you.

I'd be interested to see some of your own work, Rainer. I just went through a bit more than a year of your posts and the only picture I found was a tourist shot from Arches National Park. I'd like to see more. It would help me understand where you're coming from. Evidently you think effective landscape requires a looming "WOW" center of interest like the arch in your picture and should avoid the hand of man. I'd argue with both ideas and I suspect most experienced photographers of landscape or of any other genre would agree with me. I see that Slobodan rejects the "WOW" idea, and I certainly agree with him.

But on to your suggestions. When you tell a photographer what he "should have done" you always need to understand that the only thing you know about the scene is what you see in the picture. You can't really have what you call "ideas which came to my mind" that are valid unless you're there. Without beating the point to death I'll tell you that that's the case here. If you'd like to go there and try your own approaches I'll be happy to tell you exactly where this spot is.

[Rainer SLP]

Hi Rainer,

Wow. That's quite an analysis. Good for you. I have some problems with your explication, but I'm happy to see you take the trouble to analyze the pictures. If more of the people who post on LuLa would do that kind of thing, the quality of the postings might improve.

First off, I've never claimed my picture is a success. I've been passing by it in my archives for months, though it always stopped me for a moment before I moved on. From the standpoint of formal, rule based, composition it's a loser. But I still like it, probably because of the colors, especially the bright phlox on this side of the fence.

Let's take a look at your analysis. Your problem with the word "landscape" makes me suspect you see landscape exclusively as nature in the raw. In other words, if man or the hand of man shows in the picture it's not "landscape." That would explain your problem with the lack of a title that would have "influenced" you to see it in "another context." Fair enough. Let's change the title to "Rural Spring in All its Glory." That better? That lets us leave in the fence and doesn't require us to select a particular object as the center of focus.

Regarding "The Hay Wain," I'd disagree about the number of "interesting" objects in the picture. There are several. Your eye jumps immediately to the guy in the white shirt -- for two reasons: he's human and his shirt is the brightest spot in the picture. The fact that he's located near the center of the picture doesn't hurt either. I question whether or not the tree behind him has much to do with it. Yes, it's a leading line, but it's too soft and dark to be very effective. Then your eye moves to the dog on the bank of the river. Why? Because he's alive and because he has a large patch of white. Next your eye jumps to the spot where the sun is hitting the house -- the hand of man. After that your eye sweeps the trees, the fields and the sky. When you stand back and look at the whole scene it grabs you -- because of the colors, the composition, especially the disposition of tones -- bright and dark.

"The Hay Wain" is a magnificent example of landscape. It's infinitely more effective than landscape that avoids the hand of man (Ansel?), because for humans the hand of man always is the most interesting thing in any picture. It may be different if you're a deer or a bear.

Now on to my own not-so-great great picture. Whether or not the barn is a "WOW" is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but the point is a "so what" because the barn isn't the point of the picture. That poor little tree on the left doesn't think it's "boring. But boring or not it does tend to balance the composition. In fact the layout is almost exactly the reverse of the layout in "The Hay Wain." At least I got that right. I'd agree that the silos aren't a "WOW," though they are quite beautiful and made even more so by the lacy, flowery tree that subdues their sharpness. As you say, the fence is a fence. I like it, and you're welcome to dislike it. I suspect most people would agree with you.

I'd be interested to see some of your own work, Rainer. I just went through a bit more than a year of your posts and the only picture I found was a tourist shot from Arches National Park. I'd like to see more. It would help me understand where you're coming from. Evidently you think effective landscape requires a looming "WOW" center of interest like the arch in your picture and should avoid the hand of man. I'd argue with both ideas and I suspect most experienced photographers of landscape or of any other genre would agree with me. I see that Slobodan rejects the "WOW" idea, and I certainly agree with him.

But on to your suggestions. When you tell a photographer what he "should have done" you always need to understand that the only thing you know about the scene is what you see in the picture. You can't really have what you call "ideas which came to my mind" that are valid unless you're there. Without beating the point to death I'll tell you that that's the case here. If you'd like to go there and try your own approaches I'll be happy to tell you exactly where this spot is.

WOW 

[Rainer SLP]

Hi RSL,

When I read yout post there is one thing that attracts my attention ...

You always write ...

Your eye and there I understand my Eye ... (maybe misundertanding from my side and you are writing of yourself in third person)

Everybody sees things different and my posting, at least I think, explained what I see in your image. In my analysis I used My eye wanders from here to there and I see ... etc. etc. etc. I explained you what I see in your image and what I see in " The Hay Wain "

Interesting you are writing that your eye sees the white shirt of the man on the wain. Until now that you mentioned it draw my attention ... before that that was not a point of interest I saw ...

As you see the way of seeing things from person to person are very different.

Now quoting you

First off, I've never claimed my picture is a success.

OK, you made ir clear, but there must be something in that image that you like a lot, because if that would not be the case, you would have presented a different image ¿?

Now, ¿ where do I come from ? I come from taking images from about 45 years ago and after moving to Mexico in 1994 I started very serious while travelling around many parts of Mexico. From the crop of this imaging I set up here in Mexico about 9 photography exhibitions in different cities here in Mexico. Some general themes and dome thematic exhibitions. Sold in that time around 500 photographies. Also participated in a collective exhibition in Germany. So you know a bit about me now.

I joined Lula in August 2002 just a bit before getting my first digital camera.

¿ You want to see some of my work ? Go here www.rsfotografia.com , the images are bit small, as when I started that webpage, now abandoned due to personal reasons, the existinhg monitors were not as big as nowadays  

9 years ago I dropped out of terrestrial imaging and spent a lot of time doing Astrophotography with telescopes and dedicated special cameras for astrophotography. Cooled chips, big pixel size, etc.  built an Observatory beside my house and imaged the past to about 400 million light years back   etc.

A few months ago I started again with terrestrial photography.

OK for everything written above, but I do not see the point in what helps you that, unless you want to judge my expertise in criticising images here. Expertise or no expertise, I think does not matter. I see this User Critique more of expressing what does one like and what not. Throw in points of view.

I know there are rules but there are also there for to be broken. I do not care much about rules.

When I see something, either I like it or not and in this case I did not like it, Sorry, but I see a lot of Potential in this

"Rural Spring in All its Glory"

By the way. The message in which you saw the arch of the National Park is not my image and the whole message talks about something totally different topic

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100155.msg820124#msg820124

I asked there

¿ Why do you use a title for your photograph ?

no more no less  

Coming now to my suggestions. Looking at your image, one can see that you can move. You are not nailed down onto that point from where you took the picture, but your answer for me is not rational, because you are nailing me down to a point and telling me that I have to go there to see more. I have some imagination and seeing your image I can see that there are possibilities to walk around or drive around.

If you want to go there again or not, is your decision.

Thanks and saludos

[AreBee]

Slobodan,

Now I have to adopt your forum style...

You did not succeed - I would have italicised "your".

Robert

Rob.

...you probably mean to shoot (photograph) only for myself, not others?

Yes.

...art...is meant to be shared.

There is nothing to stop you sharing a photograph that you shot for you.

[spidermike]

I keep liking it even though it strikes me as being merely pretty.

I know exactly what you mean - I have many like that and when I try to 'see' what there is there for a neutral observer I am left thinking that I like the image because I was there and it was a 'whole immersion' thing that just seeing an image cannot replicate. This is what makes it difficult for the neutral observer and I think this is where many of the "CSI-Miami landscapes" come from - you are no longer there to 'experience' it as a whole so the temptation is to ramp up the saturation etc to re-create the 'WOW' by other means.
So where does that leave me? Your image is clearly of a very enjoyable day, pastel colours everywhere, blue sky and a wonderful morning(?). I understand what Rainer is saying but for some reason the composition gels more than a mere random snapshot so there must be something there even if I find it hard to put into words what it is. I think it is one that would work very well as part of a photoessay better than it does as a standalone image.

Too many times I see scenes like this and over-analyse it (sort of pre-empting the sort of comments Rainer made) and end up talking myself out of taking it - and I usually end up regretting the decision. I wish I could loosen up a bit and go with my instincts more and your photo is a reminder that I have to, and that not all images have to be of a quality that gets my peers fawning over my porfolio.

[AreBee]

Russ,

"The Hay Wain" is...infinitely more effective than landscape that avoids the hand of man (Ansel?)...

Perhaps Ansel Adams sought to maximise the strength of the landscape by removing non-landscape features.