Mississippi Dawn

[RSL]

Starring the hand of man.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Hi Russ,

The light is very nice, the composition is good and the image is sharp where it needs to be, but the field watering system leads my eye through the image to.. well, nothing, only an empty gap in the hedgerow and then I am lost for what to look at. What this image really needed, was even more in the way of the hand of man, namely something like a nice big red or yellow tractor in the distance and just to the left of where the watering system leads us to.

I know more often than not we have to take an image as and when we see it, but I have also found it is sometimes better to wait until all the elements are there before committing to the image. Walking past a "potential" but not just quite right shot and choosing not to take it, is about as difficult as it gets and extremely frustrating, especially when you are as obsessed with photography as I am, but in this case I would have either tried to be there when the elements where all in the right place, or tried something completely different, like a close up of the watering system instead.

all the best

Dave (UK)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

At the risk of getting on people's nerves by constantly posting my versions of their work (and with my apologies to those who find it annoying), here is what I would have done:

[degrub]

My opinion:
Other than flipping the image to help the composition elements, i prefer RSL's version with color. Without the color, i am reminded of the drought stricken fields and lack of water here - images i routinely see in the daily paper. Striking, but not the pleasant memory of better times that i have with the color version. Or maybe that was the intent ? 

[RSL]

Slobodan, I always have to pay close attention to your re-posts because you're right more often than not. You certainly saw the opportunities in my "South Park," and I took advantage of what I learned from your modifications. Since I don't often do landscape I have a lot to learn in that genre. The only thing I don't have to learn is that the hand of man almost always improves a landscape.

In this case, I don't agree. Obviously I have no problem with a grayscale conversion since I do that more often than not. But your conversion no longer is Mississippi Dawn, it's Mississippi Midday. At one point I brought the plowed field's tone up as far as you did, and then decided it needed to go back down. You may have a point about reversing the thing. The eye travel is better from left to right. But on balance I'll stick with my original. I might go for a very small increase in foreground tone, but that's about all.

Dave, It was about 7:45 in the morning and I guess I could have waited until somebody drove a tractor onto the field. Only problem is that by that time, assuming it took place the same day, it wouldn't have been dawn. Since I was passing through on my way from Colorado to Florida, it didn't make sense to try to be there when the elements were all in the right place. Like the guy in that seventies song: "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet," I had to take what I could get. So, my apologies.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In this case, I don't agree....

Fair enough... Actually, it is good that I did not get it right this time, otherwise I might start thinking, like Jack does, that I am never wrong ("I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken")

In all seriousness, that is the crux of the problem with editing someone else's work: you need to know what they felt when they took the image, or at least what their intention is when processing, let alone account for different taste.

[RSL]

Okay, Slobodan, I guess what I wanted was a compromise. I like the flip that leads the eye from left to right, and, as I said, a slight increase in tone in the foreground seems appropriate. Here's a compromise. My problem is that I just don't think in terms of reversing an image, and, until now, extensive postprocessing has been foreign to my way of working. With landscape that doesn't seem to be an appropriate attitude.

[popnfresh]

Russ, I think this is one of the best landscapes you've posted to date. To me it makes no difference whether it's flipped or not, it's still the same composition. I think I slightly prefer this image in B&W, although Slobodan's treatment jacks up the contrast a bit too much for my taste. Your color version renders the light more beautifully.

[Farmer]

Actually I prefer the orignal orientation.  If you scan from left to right then you get to follow the irrigation/sprayer/whatever-it-is and then the "hook" at the end of it leads you to the sun and then back down the outstretched portions of the system back to the middle.

If you start from the right (because of the brightness of the sun), then you again are lead down to the middle.

Once in the middle, you can drift about the image looking for other detail.

I don't get that flow so much when it's reversed.  It also feels more balance, to me, in the original but I can't really put it down to any particular thing as to why.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Dave, .... I had to take what I could get. So, my apologies.

Hi Russ, no need to apologise at all, as I said, there is a lot to like about the image (I too prefer the colour version and without the flip), it is just that it would have really nailed it down for me had the watering system led my eye to something - although I could see this image as a cover for a farming magazine with banner text etc added to it, which would work really well.

Dave (UK)

[EduPerez]

I wish we could (easily) flip only one part of the image, and have the sun on the left and the machine on the right...

[Jim Pascoe]

I prefer Slobodan's mono version as an image, but I also think it is important to be true to what you were trying to convey in the original.  So the original wins out. Now I know what a mississippi dawn looks like!

Jim