Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: John Cothron on May 05, 2012, 08:10:03 pm
-
I ducked out of the office Thursday to visit one of my favorites in the area
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7197/6995455186_94d1e5f6de_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cothronphoto/6995455186/)
Minnehaha Falls, an old friend (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cothronphoto/6995455186/) by John Cothron (http://www.flickr.com/people/cothronphoto/), on Flickr
-
Well, since everyone gets an opinion, personally I'd cut it in half, just below the rock on the left side of the frame. I don't think the foreground adds anything to the frame but detracts significantly. Others are welcome to disagree!
Mike.
-
Hmmm
Yes, Mike, this is the good old "foreground anchor" carried to extremes. So much so that it does indeed appear to be two pictures, rather than one coherent composition. And I'm not at all sure that a foreground anchor works when it is not at all crisp but essentially consists of motion blur.
Technically, of course, we would have to say that it is brilliant. And others may love it . . .
John
-
Thanks for the opinions guys. :) Yes, I can see the point of the foreground being over the top, especially as the water motion isn't a true "anchor" in the traditional sense. I do love playing with moving water, and tend toward the dynamic vs. the static. In retrospect I probably have this one leaning a little too far where balance is concerned. I would actually like to shoot this with a longer focal length (21 used in this one), maybe with a 35 to change the perspective of the foreground vs. the falls themselves. Unfortanately there is a new dead fall against my back in this image. Until it is cleared away I won't have that opportunity.