Creative choice in placement of the bush in the frame; doing so really allows the subject to be drawn into the background illumination.On the other hand my eye wants a bit more of an anchor in the foreground than what is presented. As is, this image is still pretty dramatic and interesting.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on November 14, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Man, this has such depth. I agree, the bush placement works, especially since the opening in the sky seems to be focusing on it. Yeah, this works, big time. The tones are RICH.
I'm also amazed on the IQ you get when posting a 200K image. It must look immense on your monitor.
Posted by Marc Dilley on November 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I like the luminous qualities and drama, but somehow this isn't as strong as the best of your B&W's.
Posted by Marc Adamus on November 15, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I wish I knew why. I thought it was really going to be something when I took it, but no one seems to be that interested. It's really amazing to have an expanse like this with only one solitary bush in view of the whole thing. Compliment that with clouds and perfect light, and I'm not sure where I went wrong here.
Posted by Mark Hudon on November 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM
It has good parts but it's not really strong. It's just not grabbing me. A simple shot like this needs power somehow, it doesn't have power.
Posted by Marc Adamus on November 15, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Power doesn't come from the light and clouds here? Or the striking solitary placement of the bush - not another for miles? I mean, you just don't see stuff like that often. About as powerful a placement of elements as you can have IMO, minus a lightning strike or something. I'm trying to generate some discussion on this, as it's one of those shots that would probably be up among my favorites had I not posted it to various forums. It really strikes a chord with me, but few seem to see it that way. There's another shot I took from near here you'd remember - 'The Rift'. Everyone loved it but I think this one is stronger. I'm clearly the minority here. All that shot was, was patterns in the playa and dramatic sky. This has the more defined elements and a more focused composition, and light on top of that. I'm going to disagree with the masses on this one, which is not upsetting in any way, but I'd like to here more about why.
I sat and looked at this for a few minutes before I started to read the critiques and compliments. The way the bush is slightly off-centered is great. It falls into alignment with the sun and the light being cast on the ground leading to the bush. It has a really great depth of field. The sky is very dramatic and you can tell nature means business. The shot is framed very well in my opinion and everything is balanced well. The B&W conversion is really classy and adds to the moodiness of the scene.
I really like this shot a lot. It's desolation at its finest.
Posted by Daniel Ewert on November 15, 2008 at 10:50 PM
I think this shot is among your finest. The lone bush standing before the brooding and dramatic sky and the sheen coming off of the dried mud makes for a spectacular scene. I also like the streaks in the mud from the prior storms. I would definitely keep this one.
Daniel
Posted by Philip McCrain on November 15, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Mark,
I think what is missing for me is context. My first reaction was "what is it?" The light reflecting off the surface almost looks like water or wet mud. If I look closely I see some cracks in the foreground so maybe its partially dried mud. What is the shape around the bush, windblown sand, dirt? Would I have those questions if I was looking at a large print hanging on a wall? Probably not. I imagine that the size is not doing this any favors.
Marc, I don't think this is a bad photo by any means. There is something that just seems awkward about it though. I'm not sure if i can nail it down, but I have a few observations.
The first impression was exactly what Philip said. I found myself with my nose to the screen trying to figure out what kind of setting this is. Is it dry desert? Wet or flooded? A lake shore? I can't really tell. Most likely because of the puny 720 pixel size.
The next thing i noticed was the extreme contrast difference between the top 1/3 and the lower 2/3. The top has tones from hot white to almost black, yet the rest of the image is nearly an even toned grey. very monontonous compared to the sky.
Third, is the composition. I can imagine you were trying to create the feeling of expanse, and isolation. The more obvious choice of comp to do that would have been to put the bush in the extreme FG, instead of almost center frame. I think this is where the awkwardness lies for me. I would almost bet money that you have a shot or two with that exact composition i mentioned, but were going for something a little out of the norm. I held a piece of paper to my monitor to "crop" off some of the bottom, putting the bush near the bottom of the frame and alot of the uneasiness was gone. It's position in the frame has a huge impact on the feeling of connection with the elements in the photo. it seems far from you, the viewer, but in space of the frame not so far from the clouds and BG, hurting the illusion of distance.
The last thing I'll mention is something that I'm sure we all have experienced a time or two. Sometimes being there, alone, cold, and in the elements with all of your other senses working for you as well, it's a bigger sensory experience than can be translated into photos. But you have those memories, and we don't.
Sorry for ramblin on a little bit, but I really enjoy contemplating these types of things, and trying to understand what works, and why. Like I said this is not a bad shot at all, in my opinion just a little awkward.
Posted by Marc Adamus on November 16, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Thanks, Aaron. So many times we hear 'don't like this', 'doesn't work', or a photo just gets ignored. If that's the case, the why is important to me. You're absolutely correct, as I'm sure most photographers come to understand, that our personal experiences can play a role in the connection to our photographs that no one else will ever have. I agree with you about some of the technical points and that the playa's reflectivity might be lost on this one - that's the thing that drew me to the shot to begin with. I'm not convinced that any other placement of the bush would have conveyed the expanse much better than this, but I hear what you're saying about the difficulty of showing the distance in a photograph.
Posted by Bryan Swan on November 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I've been looking at this one for a couple days now and I think I've nailed down why it doesn't quite work for me. The bush and the foreground are great, very solitary, very desolate and a little ominous. The placement of the reflection on the ground behind the bush is perfect, but working up to the sky, there is a lack of depth to me and as best I've been able to figure out, its because there is very little sense of perspective once you move above the bush. The highlight on the ground is very square and doesn't have any sort of linear regression moving into the distance, and since the clouds look fairly static and don't show movement and there aren't any more lines leading into the distance, its almost like looking at a sound stage where the sky is just painted on a wall behind the foreground objects.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Power doesn't come from the light and clouds here? Or the striking solitary placement of the bush - not another for miles?
The playa is wonderfully stark, and the sky very dramatic - but those are two very different kinds of "power". One is expansive, the other engulfing. Individually, I could see each lending great power to a scene. But combined in one shot, it feels like they're working against each other.
My immediate reaction was that it looked like a rather pedestrian scene, with a nice sky. Not necessarily an accurate assessment, but I think that's a consequence of the top and bottom working against each other. Looking at it a little longer - isolating the top and bottom separately - I felt myself connecting with one part and then the other, but not the scene as a whole.
Similar to Aaron, the placement of the bush dead-center freezes the scene for me; more so because it's the only thing with any detail in the bottom 2/3 of the image. The reflectivity of the playa is beneficial, but it's subtle relative to the drama unfolding above.
With "The Rifts", top and bottom are more harmonious, complementing each other with strong patterns in both and composed in a way that invites exploration of the scene.
Posted by John Williams on November 16, 2008 at 7:09 PM
My initial, "gut," reaction jibed well with Aaron's third point. After looking at it for awhile, I see the logic behind the photo, and the way the light "anoints" the bush is really cool. But, and a big but, it takes the logic part of my brain to kick in to get that. I hate to say it, because I think it would make a more shallow (cliched?) photo, but moving the bush at least a little closer in the comp would probably have more power for we hoi polloi.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on November 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Hmmmm, I may ruffle a few feathers here, but I think this image is getting over analyzed for technicals. As soon as I saw it, the excellent contrasts (yes, plural) jumped right out. First was tiny vs. huge (bush vs. storm), then tones (range of light), plus the depth Marc got using the seemingly helpless bush against what's forming in the background. That doesn't convey the power of the image?? Don't get me wrong, I like that wonderful technique of a FG object to give perspective against a massive distant scene, but what grabbed me was that the bush wasn't placed right at the "standard", the bottom edge of the frame in your face. Placing it alone out in the middle conveys that loneliness. If that sort of "mud loop" that wraps the bush from the LLC didn't exist then maybe the FG wouldn't have as much weight, but here it works (for me anyway). In contrast to Aaron's thoughts, the bottom crop might create that look we're all used to, but in this case that "uneasiness" needs to remain by leaving the bottom opened up. It's the point of the image.
First off, cropping this photo isn't what I meant. It was just to illustrate that having the bush nearer to the frame would help IMO.
I look at a photo of this type like a story. The bush being the main character, the sky and playa are the other elements which it interacts with. To me, the bush is so distant from the camera, that the impact of seeing the landscape through it's "eyes" is lost a bit. Being almost dead center doesn't convey the feeling of "waiting for the storm" but more like "which way should I run?" The middle of the photo is a very indecisive spot in the frame, and not a location of power or permanence.
This probably is getting over analyzed, but its just the way i think when making these types of photos. As in all art forms, there is no right or wrong. we all know that. No feathers ruffled here, either. I really enjoy reading everyones different takes on photography and composition. As long as everyone can tolerate hearing honest thoughts and opinions, it only benfits us all in the end.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I don't think it's getting over analyzed at all. Marc invited the analysis, then requested more. If there's a deeper-than-usual study of the image taking place, it's because it's been requested.
It appears to be an image that elicits wide-ranging responses. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. An image that touches one viewer deeply can come across as sterile to a different set of eyes. Such is the nature of photography, and critique. And precisely the reason that critical commentary is so valuable.
Posted by Roman Johnston on November 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Weird...I am Mr. opposite these days. I like this a LOT. I like the classic balance and simplicity. I might have played with the foreground subject being maybe a little bigger in the bottom of the frame.
Its like I am out of phase 180Degrees with the majority...lol.
Roman
Posted by Paul DeCesare on November 18, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Aaron, my apologies (I know, you don't want that), but I just re-read your post thoroughly this time and it makes great sense. Honestly, I only skimmed it while at work and shot off a rushed reply (with people invading my cubicle).
There's something ominous about the image that just grabbed me and still does. The FG brush seems so out of place it's right IN place. It certaintly makes me wish I could be at that spot and see it live. Rick was right when he said "wide-ranging" responses!
Discussion
20 repliesI'm also amazed on the IQ you get when posting a 200K image. It must look immense on your monitor.
I really like this shot a lot. It's desolation at its finest.
Daniel
I think what is missing for me is context. My first reaction was "what is it?" The light reflecting off the surface almost looks like water or wet mud. If I look closely I see some cracks in the foreground so maybe its partially dried mud. What is the shape around the bush, windblown sand, dirt? Would I have those questions if I was looking at a large print hanging on a wall? Probably not. I imagine that the size is not doing this any favors.
The first impression was exactly what Philip said. I found myself with my nose to the screen trying to figure out what kind of setting this is. Is it dry desert? Wet or flooded? A lake shore? I can't really tell. Most likely because of the puny 720 pixel size.
The next thing i noticed was the extreme contrast difference between the top 1/3 and the lower 2/3. The top has tones from hot white to almost black, yet the rest of the image is nearly an even toned grey. very monontonous compared to the sky.
Third, is the composition. I can imagine you were trying to create the feeling of expanse, and isolation. The more obvious choice of comp to do that would have been to put the bush in the extreme FG, instead of almost center frame. I think this is where the awkwardness lies for me. I would almost bet money that you have a shot or two with that exact composition i mentioned, but were going for something a little out of the norm. I held a piece of paper to my monitor to "crop" off some of the bottom, putting the bush near the bottom of the frame and alot of the uneasiness was gone. It's position in the frame has a huge impact on the feeling of connection with the elements in the photo. it seems far from you, the viewer, but in space of the frame not so far from the clouds and BG, hurting the illusion of distance.
The last thing I'll mention is something that I'm sure we all have experienced a time or two. Sometimes being there, alone, cold, and in the elements with all of your other senses working for you as well, it's a bigger sensory experience than can be translated into photos. But you have those memories, and we don't.
Sorry for ramblin on a little bit, but I really enjoy contemplating these types of things, and trying to understand what works, and why. Like I said this is not a bad shot at all, in my opinion just a little awkward.
The playa is wonderfully stark, and the sky very dramatic - but those are two very different kinds of "power". One is expansive, the other engulfing. Individually, I could see each lending great power to a scene. But combined in one shot, it feels like they're working against each other.
My immediate reaction was that it looked like a rather pedestrian scene, with a nice sky. Not necessarily an accurate assessment, but I think that's a consequence of the top and bottom working against each other. Looking at it a little longer - isolating the top and bottom separately - I felt myself connecting with one part and then the other, but not the scene as a whole.
Similar to Aaron, the placement of the bush dead-center freezes the scene for me; more so because it's the only thing with any detail in the bottom 2/3 of the image. The reflectivity of the playa is beneficial, but it's subtle relative to the drama unfolding above.
With "The Rifts", top and bottom are more harmonious, complementing each other with strong patterns in both and composed in a way that invites exploration of the scene.
Subjectivity is a beautiful thing.
First off, cropping this photo isn't what I meant. It was just to illustrate that having the bush nearer to the frame would help IMO.
I look at a photo of this type like a story. The bush being the main character, the sky and playa are the other elements which it interacts with. To me, the bush is so distant from the camera, that the impact of seeing the landscape through it's "eyes" is lost a bit. Being almost dead center doesn't convey the feeling of "waiting for the storm" but more like "which way should I run?" The middle of the photo is a very indecisive spot in the frame, and not a location of power or permanence.
This probably is getting over analyzed, but its just the way i think when making these types of photos. As in all art forms, there is no right or wrong. we all know that. No feathers ruffled here, either. I really enjoy reading everyones different takes on photography and composition. As long as everyone can tolerate hearing honest thoughts and opinions, it only benfits us all in the end.
It appears to be an image that elicits wide-ranging responses. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. An image that touches one viewer deeply can come across as sterile to a different set of eyes. Such is the nature of photography, and critique. And precisely the reason that critical commentary is so valuable.
Its like I am out of phase 180Degrees with the majority...lol.
Roman
There's something ominous about the image that just grabbed me and still does. The FG brush seems so out of place it's right IN place. It certaintly makes me wish I could be at that spot and see it live. Rick was right when he said "wide-ranging" responses!