Lovely image.Like this?
Did you try a square framing starting from the left edge ? The progression of the lone trees and hilltops into the color gradient seems attractive.
Frank
The square one works nicely for me.Yes.
Thanks for the kind comments. First time somebody hasn't kicked me for over processing ;) but then I haven't heard from Slobodan yet! ;D
Can anyone share why the square crop seems to be the one? I have been reading about composition, but would be curious to hear if there is some "reason" or is it an esthetic preference?
Thanks for the kind comments. First time somebody hasn't kicked me for over processing ;) but then I haven't heard from Slobodan yet! ;D
Can anyone share why the square crop seems to be the one? I have been reading about composition, but would be curious to hear if there is some "reason" or is it an esthetic preference?
I am generally not a square crop guy, but in this case, the square crop has a sense of expansive spaciousness that even the OOC crop lacks. So I say go square...
One thing about the square crop is the triangular composition consisting of the big tree in the lower left, the little tree in the distance, and the tree on the right in the middle distance. Once again, I am looking for rules when only generalities apply and it comes down to preference. Is that "artistic license?" Thanks for the comments.
This is the original aspect ratio; does this version accomplish what you are thinking about Alan? Seoonmie?
One thing about the square crop is the triangular composition consisting of the big tree in the lower left, the little tree in the distance, and the tree on the right in the middle distance. Once again, I am looking for rules when only generalities apply and it comes down to preference. Is that "artistic license?" Thanks for the comments.
What was your intended composition focus - the color or the branch pattern ? Is it intended to be abstract or naturalistic ?The color gradient and I thought the strong branch pattern would provide a nice frame. On my work monitor, the shadows are terribly blocked. As for abstract or naturalistic, I guess I don't understand. To me, abstract would imply the absence of recognizable structure(s). If naturalistic, then details in the branch should be brought out with the color gradient as background support. But in terms of "what caught my eye" definitely the color first and then the branch. Hope this addresses your question, Frank.
Frank
From that same evening in Los Olivos. Does the framing with the tree branch work?
...First time somebody hasn't kicked me for over processing ;) but then I haven't heard from Slobodan yet! ;D
. . .how do you carry it through in your workflow?
making sure brightness spans the available range.So these shots did not obviously span the available range. They do start out at just where the blacks start to block up, but pushing the whites and highlights in LR (or upping exposure) seems to go way too far. To my eye on a calibrated monitor; also that which I am printing is very close to what I am seeing. I know the "routine" is to spread the exposure to either side of the histogram without clipping too much and I know that's not what you're talking about. I am beginning to come to the conclusion, maybe to the point of conviction, that aside from obvious technical issues or composition, and even these are or can be subjective, the absolute standard is, "What do I like?" That doesn't make me a good photographer, though. Hmmmmm... Maybe this has devolved into so much navel gazing, but I have indeed learned a tremendous amount from these discussions, although I am finding I care less about other opinions as to whether it is good or bad, or it is liked or not, and more about specific issues that are concerning to me. I think this is a restatement of what you just said and so I guess I do know what you are talking about ;) Thanks!
I really like the first image in the op.The square crop seems to cramped to me :oYou and my wife! ;) thanks and welcome.