I've been in the process of catching up on scanning, and I have quite a few images in the works. Here's a simple scene that could have been taken almost anywhere. There is shadow detail throughout, but it's quite hard to see with the white background on the forum, bleh. Thanks for looking.
Great sky, Joel, and a very evocative image overall.
I very much like the FG tree leaning into the frame, but couldn't help notice that it has an echo (of sorts) in the mid-ground. Was there any consideration to slightly altering this perspective--moving slightly to the left and rotating modestly clockwise to perhaps give that second tree a bit more prominence as a repeating element? I don't know that this would have been any better than--or even as good as--what you've got here--and there may well have been something that prevented you from trying it at all. Just wondering.
Kerry, good eye to make out that distinction at this size! To answer your question: Yes, I absolutely was conscious of the more distant tree that echo's the curve of the closer, foreground tree. The reason the I didn't move it further towards the center of the frame (or even towards the opposing side) was simply because of the direction of the setting sun. A repositioning such as you proposed would be facing almost due north instead of predominantly west. Thus, the quality of light was placed in higher priority. This image was created for a project of mine that features very few images containing sky, so I really needed a shot where the sky was prominent and powerful. Ironically, since you brought up the other tree, I actually twice attempted a different composition using a longer lens that showcased both trees together. The light that I hoped for never came though, and as such, I didn't feel that either of those efforts resulted in a "keeper". So, in short...the decision was a compromise.
Discussion
5 repliesTech stuff: Tachihara 4x5, Fujinon 90mm, Astia 100f, 2 stop GND
I very much like the FG tree leaning into the frame, but couldn't help notice that it has an echo (of sorts) in the mid-ground. Was there any consideration to slightly altering this perspective--moving slightly to the left and rotating modestly clockwise to perhaps give that second tree a bit more prominence as a repeating element? I don't know that this would have been any better than--or even as good as--what you've got here--and there may well have been something that prevented you from trying it at all. Just wondering.
Kerry, good eye to make out that distinction at this size! To answer your question: Yes, I absolutely was conscious of the more distant tree that echo's the curve of the closer, foreground tree. The reason the I didn't move it further towards the center of the frame (or even towards the opposing side) was simply because of the direction of the setting sun. A repositioning such as you proposed would be facing almost due north instead of predominantly west. Thus, the quality of light was placed in higher priority. This image was created for a project of mine that features very few images containing sky, so I really needed a shot where the sky was prominent and powerful. Ironically, since you brought up the other tree, I actually twice attempted a different composition using a longer lens that showcased both trees together. The light that I hoped for never came though, and as such, I didn't feel that either of those efforts resulted in a "keeper". So, in short...the decision was a compromise.