Murali, excellent capture. Along with the dogwood, the trees hold some very fine detail also. Nice work. So far as the composition, forests or wooded areas are not easy places to work the scenes out of IMO, this works very well overall.
I like this very much and it's certainly not too busy. I think the trees and dogwood are arranged in a tight, but very pleasing arrangement. As Paul mentioned, I like the detail in the tall trees. Although I like this as is, an alternative crop might be to come down from the top about an inch (as on screen) or may 15% - I think this still maintains the presence and details of the trees in the background, but creates a little more balance top to bottom.
I'm glad you didn't resist! This is quite nice and well captured.
The couple of times I tried to take some dogwood pics, I wasn't quite happy. Your flowers work well against the dark trunks and forest and dogwoods by their nature are kind of busy so I wouldn't call this too busy. Sometimes this type of shot calls for a Christopher Burkett shot on an 8x10 with a large Cibachrome. You might post a larger one someplace that would work to show the stark whiteness of the flowers.
I think this is avery nice photo. Has a nice deep forest feel about it. The dogwood adds some great visual appeal too.
Regarding being busy or not, here are some questions that might be worth thinking about. Why are photographers so caught up with simplifying their composition all the time? What is wrong with photographing a complex scene in such a manner that actually showcases the complexity?
Ahh, bigger is more beautiful. Thanks for posting the larger one.The smaller format here favors the bright graphic types of photos or those that are simplified. Detailed shots don't come across well when maxed out to 720 on one side.
Murali, I like the composition. Tight and pleasing, like Lon said, in a kind of Eliot Porter sort of way.
For what its worth, I don't believe any of those trees pictured are redwoods. Coast redwoods are, of course, not found in Yosemite National Park or anywhere outside the coasts of north-central and northern California (and southwestern Oregon). Giant sequoias (relatives of the coast redwood) are found in Yosemite (though only in the small Mariposa, Merced, and Tuolumne groves) and in scattered other locations through the western mid-Sierra. But none of those trees you photographed here look like sequoias (with one possible exception). The 2 most prominent conifers, in the center and behind the foreground dogwood, are white or Douglas fir and incense cedar. The ones in the background appear to be the same. I don't see any of the characteristic massive trunks and chunky red-plated bark of sequoia trees. The only possible exception is the reddish one half-hidden behind the skinny white fir on the extreme left of the frame, but that's hard to say. It looks the same thickness as the other firs in the picture, which would generally rule against it being a sequoia, but that could be a trick of perspective. Hope this helps.
Murali, I just noticed your bigger 2.5M file. I do believe that that tree on the left is indeed a sequoia, one not yet mature so still on the thin side. I'm talking about the one with the fire scar, rising from behind the skinny white fir on the extreme left. Again, this is just for what its worth -
Discussion
10 repliesI am not sure about the composition. If it looks too busy let me know. Thanks for your comments in advance.
d300, 1/13s, f/10, iso200, 80mm. Yosemite National Park, CA
Thanks,
Murali
I like this very much and it's certainly not too busy. I think the trees and dogwood are arranged in a tight, but very pleasing arrangement. As Paul mentioned, I like the detail in the tall trees. Although I like this as is, an alternative crop might be to come down from the top about an inch (as on screen) or may 15% - I think this still maintains the presence and details of the trees in the background, but creates a little more balance top to bottom.
I'm glad you didn't resist! This is quite nice and well captured.
Lon
Here is the big 2.5M version, but only at jpeg compression set to 7 (otherwise file size to 12.4MB), so might not be as sharp as it could.
http://muraliachanta.com/wordpress/?page_id=72
Thanks,
Murali
I think this is avery nice photo. Has a nice deep forest feel about it. The dogwood adds some great visual appeal too.
Regarding being busy or not, here are some questions that might be worth thinking about. Why are photographers so caught up with simplifying their composition all the time? What is wrong with photographing a complex scene in such a manner that actually showcases the complexity?
Regards.
For what its worth, I don't believe any of those trees pictured are redwoods. Coast redwoods are, of course, not found in Yosemite National Park or anywhere outside the coasts of north-central and northern California (and southwestern Oregon). Giant sequoias (relatives of the coast redwood) are found in Yosemite (though only in the small Mariposa, Merced, and Tuolumne groves) and in scattered other locations through the western mid-Sierra. But none of those trees you photographed here look like sequoias (with one possible exception). The 2 most prominent conifers, in the center and behind the foreground dogwood, are white or Douglas fir and incense cedar. The ones in the background appear to be the same. I don't see any of the characteristic massive trunks and chunky red-plated bark of sequoia trees. The only possible exception is the reddish one half-hidden behind the skinny white fir on the extreme left of the frame, but that's hard to say. It looks the same thickness as the other firs in the picture, which would generally rule against it being a sequoia, but that could be a trick of perspective. Hope this helps.
Scott
Scott