Tree With Coyote Hills - Color Transparency Version

There is too much sky. If the sky were cut horizontally halfway between the top of the tree and the top of the picture, the geometric horizon (at the bottom of the mountains) would then be a third of the way up the picture and the tree itself would be vertically central. This would make, in my opinion, a way better balanced composition. (Don't worry about the rule of thirds horizontally - the picture benefits from the space on the left.)

 

The colours are pristine. I like the way the furrows draw the eye right underneath the centre of gravity of the tree, but then the break in the furrows stops the eye from being drawn in deeper but is left instead to explore the tree.

 

Taking a second look, I'm tempted to also crop the bottom to get rid of the ploughed part of the field.

I agree with most of the positive commnents made so far thus I will not repeat them. My only criticism like some others is the bottom right hand part - ploughed earth does not go with the wonderful imagery set by the picture. I had to move the picture slowly from top to bottom to see that. Otherwise AOK. Taha

First of all, it is a very good picture and I did have a "WOW" experience the first time my eyes and mind were exposed to it.

After a while, though, the effect diminished a little. I think the main reason is that there is too much sky, which kind of sank my emotions into its inmensity instead of keeping them alive...

Did you try diffrent crops? I guess you did. I tried to crop the published image in different ways but did not get a better image.

But don't take me wrong: it is a beautiful shot!

Roberto

The primary components in this image (IMO) are the green rows and the solitary tree; that's

where my attention should be. I find that the brown furrows in the lower right corner detract

from the main part of the image, and I believe the expanse of sky does the same (at least the

sky doesn't contribute to the image except to add a sense of openness, which I contend is

not central to this image). As I scroll the larger image up and down to crop the furrows and

about 60% of the sky above the tree, I like the results. Finally, I think the faint trees in the

background are very important to this photograph, because they connect the tree in the

foreground to the rest of the image; the image would lose a lot without them. Congrats on

the POW.

I think is image is very nice and composed very well. Its a little bit of a change from the normal landscapes that I see everyday on this site. I have a bit of a problem with all the people commenting on the sky; that its either not strong enough or should be cropped out in favor of a horizontal landscape. First, not all skys must be intensely saturated. Over-saturation simply makes all these landscapes the same. My second point follows from the first: cropping the image would make it look like all the other landscapes. As a photograher, one thing that I value highly is uniqueness and while this photo is not the most unique it does stand out somewhat from many of the photos on this site and that is something valuable.

I wouldn't mind seeing a high contrast black and white version of this.

i think this is a great image...

why does the sky need to have some oomph to be included in the picture..i feel its a perfect background for the image highlight the deeper greens and the tree in the forground...

why does the picture need to follow the rule of the third or some fussy cropping that everyone seems to suggest.. yes sometimes cropping the image or using polarizers might help give a great image...but i think the image is beautiful in itself and doesnt need anything more.

i totally agree with noah and whilst scrolling down the comments, its is very appreciative for everyone to give their suggestions...but do we always need to follow certain rules prescribed by books, etc...to judge a great picture...

kudos to you Jim...great image and great portfolio

I like the way the diagonal grey lines on the lower right invade the symmetry of the composition. Maybe its only a detail but it makes the photo stand out in terms of composition

Thanks Georgios, that's exactly why I left that plowed earth at the bottom in the frame, to break up the symmetry.

Jim

You don't need to include so much sky just to get a feeling of a lot of sky. Problem is, with too much blankness up there the eye goes in search of why so much is there. No birds, planes, etc., so it get bored and moves on (as in to another photo). Without so much to see (or not see in this case after cropping), you (your eye) must now go study the fine details left in the image- which are now a larger percentage of the image- thus staying in the image longer. And that my friends is bottom line success in creating great art from good art.

Very nice piece Jim, a great sense of time and place- and it's crisp and clean. A good reminder that less is more. Now off to visit your portfolio eveyone is talking about.

Perhaps photographers are the exception to the rule, because my eyes pretty much go where I tell them to. If only my mouth was so well trained.

 

The dynamic of the frame is certainly changed by the crop, no doubt about that but I think I would stay with the original version because of the way the tree occupies its own half of the frame which I like very much. The existing composition seems more balanced and less crowded.

 

Very small viewing sizes on the web do usually favor tighter crops just to be able to see some detail, especially in landscapes. The printed version (let's hope) would demand an almost entirely different set of criteria for critique. I prefer to think in terms of decent sized prints rather than screen images, so forgive me if we are talking about two different things.

 

I don't care for the aspect ratio of the suggested crop, it looks odd to me and compromises the photographer's original vision of the scene. In this case I would say that "Less is Best" when less means left alone. Think about the fact that the photograph (as posted) reflects the personality and experience of the photographer. You can change it to suit your own tastes or you can learn to appreciate the unique vision of the original artist.

 

This forum seeks a unified view of the world by reaching some sort of consensus as to the right way of doing things. The ultimate result of that thinking would be the death of creativity and the end of photography as an art form. Keep chipping away at it if you must but thankfully not everyone will buy into the idea of photographic "rightness."

P.S. The other thing that I forgot to mention was that I enjoy the opposing diagonals provided by the clouds (and furrows) in the original photograph.

I try to make my idea for this pic if I wil be successful to uploud it...:)

My feeling about the image is that everything is as it should be. To me, the scene has an almost apocalyptic feel, almost. Somehow the presence of the furrows brings to bear that man and machine had an effect on this landscape... the tree(s) are dying and seem to bend under the weight of the sky... even the presence of the diagonals in the lower right contribute to the feel that the natural order has been broken. There are plenty of images of this type with oversaturated skies, majestic peaks (instead of worn hills) but what would that do here? The 'thin' color tones and unorthodox crop also are consistent with the subject matter and create an image that is perfect and broken at the same time. Just enjoy it.

I think even more is needed off the top over that of my original crop, your eye can still wander out the top (yes, you eye has it's own mind- try not to look at a black dot on white piece of paper, you will have a real fight on your hands!).

Slight burn of sky was made, couldn't help myself.

Jim I think you did this shot superbly ! I like the crop of your shot as is , it gives breathing room and tends to reach up by the out stretching branches of the tree. I really like the plowed earth in the forground .Nice composition seems well thought out to me. I dont see much need for improvement , maybe a bit more tree .

.

Congrats on POW !

Robert

Thanks for the thoughtful comments and examples of cropping posted. Michael S., your last crop, doesn't it seem that the top of the frame, the weight of it, is pushing the tree down?
Jim

Jim, a simply stunning composition, excellent in its original version. Forget cropping. These guys are just blowing smoke. Superb!

I was drawn through the sky to the tree, then the perfect green undulations, then was caught offguard by the plowed ground. I then had to explore the rest of the photo in detail. Is the tree dead? Intellectually, the picture held my attention for a long time.

Superb as is. I wonder if you experimented with cropping the bottom just above the plowed rows, hence somewhat rooting the tree into the bottom, and then cropping the top to about an inch above the top most branch? Thank you for sharing.

Yes David the tree was probably dead or very close to it. Plowing those rows right through the root zone didn't help any, but when I shot this image I may have thought that being late winter, the tree would sprout out in Summer. I do remember though, on a later visit, it had fallen over and it's branches were broken up. This reminds me that at that time in the mid 80's, I had photographed several trees in my neighborhood, and after a visit or two, I would go back and find these trees completely gone stump and all...very strange! Two really big thick "bull" palm trees in a front yard, and several big old Monterey Pines near the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley. I started to get nervous about photographing trees, which were one of my favorite motives. Nowadays I'm happy to say that that jinx seems to have left me....I think.

Jacob, that certainly is a fine crop. I guess it shows there are no absolutely "right" crops on some images. Thanks,
JimJim

Jim, that's a good point -- there may be a variety of crops on a given image that will be

favored by different viewers and that will impart different impressions on those viewers. I

don't think I'm blowing smoke when I try to find variations within a given rendition, and I'm

also not trying to make an image conform to any particular rule....I'm just looking to see if

there are additional variations that I (as an individual) might like even more. The comment

about a significant crop of the sky resulting in a sense of the top of the frame weighing down

on the tree is a good comment (IMO), even though it is contrary to my earlier suggestion. I

guess we're all looking for a sweet spot, and the location of that sweet spot is not going to

be the same for every viewer.