Critique Away!

In my opinion, so take it with some salt. It lacks a focus
point. Technically its great but I would like to see a point
of interest.

 

Agreed; it needs a crop, perhaps. The treed area may have interesting contrast if cropped.

Rich

 

Hi Jerrel,

I just read this in the "Readers Digest" photo book this afternoon so it just has to be true.  

Divide the picture in thirds from top to bottom. One third for the sky, one third for the middle (the grove of trees in your pic) and one third for the foreground. I think something to focus upon in the foreground would help your composition. Could be anything, a rock, a flower, even an old tree stump.

HTH,

 

I think the rule of thirds is only guideline that can be broken
if it is justified by the subject of the shot. Although I do agree
that it requires something in the foreground. Even a big tree
off to one side would do it.

 

What's that little white spot on the left? Is that a house? I think that would make such an awsome large print panorama if it is. The leading line of the tree tops point directly to it!

WOW What vision! You are definately my idol.

 

Jarrell, I like the abstract qualities this photo has. One of my very favorite painters is Mark Rothko, and I can stare for quite long periods at the line that divides his color patches. This photo has much the same quality - The green of the group of trees seems to boil into the sky.

I dunno about the one on the left, but I'd clone out the one on the right.

 

It is a simple picture with nice subtle colors making it easy to look at. Perhaps a short poem in the upper right hand side would do the trick.

 

ugh, I ment my "other left" I must be dyslexic too! hey depends on the amount of detail. When sized for web, it may not be readily viewable as such, but in print, if it has enough detail, I think it would be really awsome as a subject and very clever with the tree line.

 

Hi, Jarrell.

Since you insist,   I think I might've gone for something completely different if I were there -- but this is hindsight w/out actually been there of course.  

In general, I would've probably gone for a completely different POV primarily to play w/ the landscape there or to show off the wild golden grass(or is it wheat?). And I would probably go w/ a completely different lens for this, either something wider or something longer.

For instance, if I had spotted the distant white house as Gregory did in your photo, I might've played the golden wheat field (or just a couple yards wide of it) against the distant house in the background. A long lens and getting lower perspective would probably be needed in this case unless I could find a higher vantage point to shoot from. Maybe throw in just the "right" end of that nearby patch of trees perhaps for balance depending on the exact choice of composition. Another possibility is to get much closer to that house and then go for a wideangle that either plays the field more or the sky more from higher or lower POV.

For me, part of the problem is the sky isn't all that interesting, but it's taking up so much of the frame. And the nearby patch of tree is rather non-descript although it shows a little promise w/ its shape. And as a landscape, I don't find too much of interest in terms of patterns and such in this particular view.

Might I suggest checking out Ed Ley's landscapes from Southern Cal for some ideas -- he's an occasional visiter at DPR (and shoot mostly film w/ Nikon gear, not digital   although he finally picked up a DSLR w/ the D2H not long ago)? There are some really awesome photos in that collection, IMHO. And I always enjoy chatting w/ him on DPR when I "bump" into him there:

http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/

Hmmm... Maybe we can even invite him to come visit us here -- maybe the next time I "bump" into him.  

Anyway, those are my humble opinions since you insisted.  

Kind regards,

_Man_

 

There was only one thing missing, Jarrell, but I fixed it :lol:.

 

Frank, hey, that's really good! How did you do that?

 

My two cents:

I would like to see the same scene but much wider angle. More of the foreground and sky and bit less of the middle green.

The scene has three interesting layers. Actually four if you count the open field and the trees as two.

I think it has a lot of potential, and frankly I don't mind it the way it is.

Personally, I think capturing the place doesn't have to include a focus such as a building, animal, etc. It can just make me ponder standing there myself.

 

That definitely adds a center of interest and balances the image nicely.

 

Oh yes, thats my favourite, my daughter would like that picture as she has just been the West Midlands Safari Park here in the UK. Thanks for sharing it!

 

Photoshop. I just added the giraffe on a top layer, and then flattened the image.

 

Jarrell

I think it is a pretty setting. I suspect what you were trying to get a photo of was the beautiful light. Had you captured it the image would have probably been considerably different and much more inviting. The light was the reason, the story. As others mentioned I would have cropped out some sky as it doesn't offer a lot. I wish the side of my house looked like yours!