I think the idea is interresting, but if it is for a portfolio I don't know...
The fore tree bothers me for the "idea" I see you're trying to achieve in this photo, which would be something like this that rides a lot on the eye grazing each details in the photo.
Having the leaf tree in the frame, you'd want to give it more focus, as a counterpoint of the others, emphasis on its difference. The foreground tree robs it of some of the attention.
If only a crop solution, I'd cut the bottom tree out and sit the green tree smack at the bottom of the frame. I would've liked to see more of the tree landscape on top though. At least crop out the stumps at the top of the photo, not enough data to even be a hint of what those trees are.
The foreground tree in itself looks like it could be interresting and might warrant its own photo. But I think both subjects can't be in the same photo,at least as-is because the sum of the two does not double the power of the photo.
If not intent in keeping the exact colors seen on the spot, I'd saturate the greens and make sure the tree whites are white and bright. On the full frame photo, I'd want to make sure the tree details are tack sharp and contrasty... Aka, work the photo to enhance the feel you're trying to convey of the ghostly branches of the sparse odd trees.
It might be a very nice result when looking at the hi-res print.
I find the composition wanders a bit. For me, the heart of it is the juxtposition of the new and the old, the bare and the green. I like it cropped down to just below the trio of trees in the top right area (just above the stump). I find it makes the foreground trees work.
I've always liked these views and have attempted many myself. Like Harley, I really like the juxtaposition of the spring greens vs. the winter oaks. Technically, I'm guessing this was still winter, probably January. Also, his idea of a crop from the top works, but alternatively I might crop from the bottom to remove the mostly white-ish branches near the lower right.
I think with either of those crops you could include this in your portfolio, but ultimately you'll need to decide.
Discussion
5 repliesYay or nay on adding it to the portfolio?
Honest answers welcome.
Thanks,
The fore tree bothers me for the "idea" I see you're trying to achieve in this photo, which would be something like this that rides a lot on the eye grazing each details in the photo.
Having the leaf tree in the frame, you'd want to give it more focus, as a counterpoint of the others, emphasis on its difference. The foreground tree robs it of some of the attention.
If only a crop solution, I'd cut the bottom tree out and sit the green tree smack at the bottom of the frame. I would've liked to see more of the tree landscape on top though. At least crop out the stumps at the top of the photo, not enough data to even be a hint of what those trees are.
The foreground tree in itself looks like it could be interresting and might warrant its own photo. But I think both subjects can't be in the same photo,at least as-is because the sum of the two does not double the power of the photo.
If not intent in keeping the exact colors seen on the spot, I'd saturate the greens and make sure the tree whites are white and bright. On the full frame photo, I'd want to make sure the tree details are tack sharp and contrasty... Aka, work the photo to enhance the feel you're trying to convey of the ghostly branches of the sparse odd trees.
It might be a very nice result when looking at the hi-res print.
I've always liked these views and have attempted many myself. Like Harley, I really like the juxtaposition of the spring greens vs. the winter oaks. Technically, I'm guessing this was still winter, probably January. Also, his idea of a crop from the top works, but alternatively I might crop from the bottom to remove the mostly white-ish branches near the lower right.
I think with either of those crops you could include this in your portfolio, but ultimately you'll need to decide.
Lon