The Future

Whenever we make an image or view or comment upon one, that is a very personal experience; one that occurs through unique filters.

That said, my personal reaction to this one, espeically in the absence of any qualifying narrative, Raied, would be that I would probably have preferred seeing the focus be at half the hyperfocal distance so that the whole thing would be in acceptably sharp focus. I realize that you posted this in the Environmental PhotoJournalism forum, and let's say, for the sake of discussion, that it is supposed to be about global warming. To my, were that the case, the point would have been better served.

Since nothing in this frame is moving around, had that been your intent you could and would have traded off the aperture against shutter speed. I feel I must therefore be missing something in your intent. So I'm hoping you will provide an explanation. I might have gone for something like 1/120 at f/22 or something like that.

So I realize I'm missing something in your intention. What is it?

Thanks for reviewing my Photo.
I decided to publish this Photo in the Environmental PJ gallery to send a message about our Future with the current Global Warming Situation.
If you are thirsty and lying down on your belly, you will see the earth this way. The dry dirt in front of your eyes will look in focus, but EVERYTHING else will be blurry!! javascript:%20x()
Before shooting this photo, I did as you mentioned with f/22 (attached) but it looked like any other Landscape Photography. I looked at it, and thought I need to make something with a meaning.
Those were my Intentions!
Thanks again for reviewing!

Thanks for your explanation, Raied. So the subject in your original image is implicit, not in the frame, but imagined, perhaps crawling on the ground suffering dehydration and no water in sight.

As a form of photographic expression, this general approach is very interesting, and with your explanation, it now all makes perfect sense to me. The idea of global warming was somewhat apparent, but not the implied perceivert, and with your explanation, I think it's pretty powerful. .

I do like the ground level perspective. The first version has a more artistic flare, the second a more literal one. They both could be used in a story about climate change, it just depends on the editor and the contents, the first version is probably what would be chosen, mainly because, very shallow depth of field is popular at this moment and text could be easily recognized.