driftwood

[Jeremy Roussak]

I was walking along a lake shore over the weekend and this appealed to me. I'm not really sure why. Anyone else?

[attachment=21903:driftwood.jpg]

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Just me, then. Hey ho.

Jeremy

[francois]

Just me, then. Hey ho.

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
I looked at your photo but haven't yet reached a definive judgment. I like it but it doesn't trigger any deep thing. The piece of wood is perhaps too "straight", not enough "tormented".
I'll see what other users say, because I can't really express my feeling about this image.

[John R Smith]

Jeremy

Actually I think you might have had a better picture there without the piece of wood. If you had re-composed a section of the rocks in the left-hand side, with the little plants growing up around and through them, the blue colour and the low-key presentation could have created an almost abstract design. Personally, I find the driftwood distracting and not making a particularly positive contribution to the frame, partly because it does not have a very strong texture or shape, and also because its tonal value is very high and out of context with the remainder of the image. It creates a strong diagonal, certainly, but this seems somehow at odds with the rest of the image. Remembering that the the eye is drawn most strongly to the lightest part of a picture - in this case it is drawn strongly to the wood, but when we arrive there there is little for the viewer to actually see. Moreover, its elevated tonal value prevents us from seeing the rest of the composition in a balanced fashion.

John

[PeterAit]

Hi Jeremy,
I looked at your photo but haven't yet reached a definive judgment. I like it but it doesn't trigger any deep thing. The piece of wood is perhaps too "straight", not enough "tormented".
I'll see what other users say, because I can't really express my feeling about this image.

I like it a lot, partly because it isn't the banal image of "tormented" driftwood. I like that the wood is not centered. I might have experimented with making the wood a tad darker.

[francois]

I find both John and Peter comments very interesting and enlightening. For me, after looking at this image again, I found that the piece of wood is effectively very bright and attracts my attention. In fact, for me again, it becomes the main subject. With darker tones, it would be an element of this image and the background could play a bigger role. As a main subject, the driftwood  is not particulary interesting, hence my remark about its non-tormented nature.

[wolfnowl]

Actually I think you might have had a better picture there without the piece of wood.

That was my first thought as well.  The patterns in the rocks and the radial symmetry of the grass stems really appeals to me.  The wood by contrast is 'too' bright, standing out like a bad actor on a dark stage.  Maybe if you toned down the brightness of the wood a little it would appear more 'in place'.  OTOH, maybe that was the effect you were looking for!  "Tortured wood" though... I like that.

Mike.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Jeremy,

I'm with John on this. I can't warm up to the driftwood, but the rocks and small plants are quite enticing. I think I'd prefer it without the wood.

(Hmm. I wonder what CS5's "context-aware" fill would do to this one.   ).

Eric

[kbolin]

Jeremy,

I'm with John on this. I can't warm up to the driftwood, but the rocks and small plants are quite enticing. I think I'd prefer it without the wood.

(Hmm. I wonder what CS5's "context-aware" fill would do to this one.   ).

Eric

Lucky you that PS CS5 has "content aware" and voila the log is gone.    

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy,

I'm with John on this. I can't warm up to the driftwood, but the rocks and small plants are quite enticing. I think I'd prefer it without the wood.

(Hmm. I wonder what CS5's "context-aware" fill would do to this one.   ).

Eric

Content-aware fill is sometimes (often?) strong evidence in favour of the existence of magic but in this case it doesn't really work. I understand the points made about the stones being an image in themselves: it just wasn't what I saw (it was the wood which caught my eye). I'll look with more open eyes next time.

I've fiddled with the wood. Is this better, perhaps?

[attachment=21973:drift.jpg]

Jeremy

[John R Smith]

Jeremy

By altering the balance between the light and dark parts of the picture, it is indeed much better. I would still have problems with the composition in terms of its subject, but that is my taste, rather than an absolute technical kind of thing. But I tend to take pictures like this too, I see something and think "Brilliant! That's great", get the shot, but then on reflection realise that simple chunks of nature are not in themselves great pictures. The truth is we have to do more than just 'capture' the landscape or the world out there. We have to DO something to it - and I don't mean mess about with it for hours in Photoshop - we have to transform it with a personal vision somehow. Which may mean waiting days for the best light, or the perfect sky, or 'walking the shot' looking for better angles, or just plain being ready when something magic happens.

If I knew how to do it I'd be rich and famous and not messing about on LL Forum. So good luck to you, mate.

John

[wolfnowl]

Definitely better.  I still like the rocks, though.  You know, if that piece gets washed away by the tide...

Mike.