Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Foreground or no foreground  (Read 5122 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Foreground or no foreground
« on: February 12, 2009, 09:40:04 pm »

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a 8 images pano with DoF stacking.

I have a hard time deciding whether I need this much foreground or a bit less for a more traditional pano aspect ratio.



Any thoughts on this difficult topic?

Regards,
Bernard

bretedge

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
    • Bret Edge Photography
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2009, 09:47:46 pm »

I definitely vote for less foreground.  There isn't much of anything interesting there and losing what is there won't negatively impact the image.  Take it out and never look back!

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2009, 10:00:45 pm »

I like the snow in the foreground but not the weeds.  So unless you plan to start a massive cloning job I'd go with no foreground.  I'd spend some time with the healing brush.
Logged

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
    • http://www.unit16.net
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2009, 11:16:12 pm »

The foreground might work better on big prints than small ones.  "Spacious" compositions like that work best at large scale.

I have a very similar shot with thin, bright weeds sticking up from beyond the bottom of the print on dark background, at a recent opening got a number of comments about how "elegant" that looked.  
Logged

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2009, 11:19:20 pm »

It looks right to me as it is.  The foreground gives it some depth and, as someone above said, "spaciousness".  I think that's a good thing.  If you crop much of the foreground it becomes more about the tree.  The tree by itself isn't particularly interesting, it's the whole combination of things in the landscape that's interesting, foreground included.

Lisa
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 11:21:18 pm by nniko »
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

whawn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
    • The Daily Photographâ„¢
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2009, 11:38:57 pm »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I have a hard time deciding whether I need this much foreground or a bit less for a more traditional pano aspect ratio.
I took a bit off the bottom and a little off the top.  I think it's stronger, but that's because I like trees and mountains much more than snow and overcast.  
[attachment=11481:32712256...18_ocrop.jpg]
Logged
Walter Hawn -- Casper, Wyoming

wolfnowl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5824
    • M&M's Musings
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2009, 12:54:35 am »

Well, I removed some of the foreground (just above the curved grass stem) but left the clouds.  Hey, everyone gets an opinion!

Mike.

[attachment=11482:32712256...cf0118_o.jpg]
Logged
If your mind is attuned t

babel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
    • http://www.douglasmcbride.com
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2009, 03:43:21 am »

Quote from: wolfnowl
Well, I removed some of the foreground (just above the curved grass stem) but left the clouds.  Hey, everyone gets an opinion!

Mike.

[attachment=11482:32712256...cf0118_o.jpg]


I don't agree with this crop mike...

Phew such a regular contributer, sorry for disagree-ing

There is no grounding to the shot now, I think foreground detail in such a shot is needed to give that sense of space, you know, 'that view beyond'

As you say its all subjective

Reminds me of the trees on the Icefield Parkway nr Banff, the birches all white/bleached on the trunks, thats what interests me

If I can add my own point...why make the image in the middle of the day, the light more oblique would have given more 3d to the tree in the middle foreground

I rarely take pictures in the middle of the day, maybe its the Scottish light..hmmm, where is the best light. Antartica...!

Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2009, 03:47:25 am »

Quote from: wolfnowl
Well, I removed some of the foreground (just above the curved grass stem) but left the clouds.  Hey, everyone gets an opinion!

Mike.

[attachment=11482:32712256...cf0118_o.jpg]
That's pretty much exactly the crop I selected when I first looked at Bernard's original image. I think it works well. Walter's crop looks cramped to me.

Jeremy
Logged

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1082
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2009, 04:20:05 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I have a hard time deciding whether I need this much foreground or a bit less for a more traditional pano aspect ratio.
I'd vote for the original version, it gives me the right sense of space to frame the tree (both from the nice sky and the wind-textured snow foreground).
I too would advise a massive cloning job to get rid of some of more prominents weeds (especially the ones of which we don't see the foot, at front), that distract the eye from the nice snow patterns... As we say in French, the advisers are not the payers here.  

The ultimate landscape photographer's tool : the telescopic hedge trimmer? (NB don't forget the 220V power generator too).  
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 04:21:08 am by NikoJorj »
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery

veloman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
    • http://
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2009, 04:20:53 am »

Quote from: DarkPenguin
I like the snow in the foreground but not the weeds.  So unless you plan to start a massive cloning job I'd go with no foreground.  I'd spend some time with the healing brush.

Well,Mother Nature can be so untidy at times  

Seriously ,I think it should stay as it is,without the foreground snow  the mountain snow means very little ,plus it's the picture you first saw and your brain said 'click'.

Arwyn
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2009, 04:42:55 am »

Thank you all for the various opinions and advice. It validated my questioning as being legitimate.

As far as the time of the day is concerned, I clearly agree that later light would have been better, but photography was not the main dimension of this one trip and various constraints made it hard to change the time.

Either way, a passionate cloning session definitely shows in my crystal ball...

Cheers,
Bernard

Chris_T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 541
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2009, 09:39:01 am »

I pay close attention to both the foreground and background in every image I shoot or view. Very often I won't bother taking a shot even if one is interesting but the other is not.

For me, the big tree in your image is not only the foreground of interest, but also the main subject of interest. Trimming off 1/2 of the snow at the bottom brings further focus to the tree.

On my slow computer, the image is displayed progressively starting from the top. The intrique builds up as the image appears, but stops at the bottom when nothing interesting shows through the snow.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2009, 10:15:18 am »

I vote for Mike and Jeremy's crop. Take away a little of the foreground snow, but keep all of the clouds.

Eric

Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13769
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2009, 10:23:12 am »

Bernard,
I vote for less foreground. With the original version (no crop), the tree is - for me - a bit lost and it takes some times before it becomes a strong or major element of your photo. With less foreground - for me again - the tree becomes immediately a very strong element. Cropping the foreground gives more power to your photo.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 10:23:56 am by francois »
Logged
Francois

Luis Argerich

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
  • Astrolandscaper
    • http://www.luisargerich.com/
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2009, 10:40:08 am »

I vote for a cloning night & donuts, the foreground snow once clean will look great.
BTW: Awesome picture, I like it  a lot.

Luigi

bill t.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
    • http://www.unit16.net
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2009, 01:15:25 pm »

I see the forces of Creeping Cropism are once again at play!  I swore off that stuff in high school.  

It needs the snow underneath to support the tree and clouds and balance the sky.  The snow lifts the darker areas towards the sky.  It's just SOOO obvious!  Anything else is just wrong, wrong, wrong!  Who wants a tree and mountain range settled like inanimate sediment again the bottom of the frame?  Trees and mountains need something to push up from.  Also in the grand scheme of things this should be a wall mural.  Everybody know wall murals need more stuff at the bottom.  Sheesh!

Logged

button

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • http://
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2009, 11:26:03 pm »

The original creates visual tension for me by drawing my eyes from about the bottom third of the image down, then back again- it's a pretty cool effect.

John
Logged

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Foreground or no foreground
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2009, 12:04:24 am »

I prefer less foreground, such as Walter's and Mike's versions.
Logged
Dean Erger
Pages: [1]   Go Up