ENERGY

Beautiful light and colour. A gentle, invigorating autumn mood.

Enchanting golden light thru the trees, Roger.

I like the overall idea of this, the silhouetted trees, the beautiful light and light rays, especially in the right-hand portion of the photo. The picnic tables are a nice detail as is the texture you've captured in the leaf-strewn foreground. There's a lot of strength here.

 

The left side of the picture doesn't work as well for me. The sky being so blown out seems to disrupt the mood and the yellow toward the ground in that patch on the left just doesn't seem quite organic.

 

I like the energy you've captured here, both the strength and subtlety of lighting, its brilliance as well as its more subdued qualities, even though something in the upper left quadrant feels amiss.

Thanks, Donna, Cherlyn and Fred. Fred, I actually considered cropping to the left of the left picnic table, including 2 or 3 tree trunks, but I thought it produced a different & more gentle mood - may try it again with some adjustments & thanks for the suggestion. To my surprise monochrome doesn't work as well.

I see what Fred is saying about cropping the left and the blown out sky can be a distraction. But when I do a "hand over left side crop", it seems to lose a little rhythm. The trees on the left are essential partners in the dance.

A delight of scene and atmosphere. Excellent silhouettes, light and tones. Very good image, Roger. Best regards!

The fact that I was critical of the left side was not meant to suggest that my solution would be to crop the left side out. I happen to agree with Joseph (and had already done the same experiment as he) that cropping would deplete this of energy. Often my criticisms are meant to stand on their own and not to state or imply there is necessarily a solution, given the particular photo. I tend rarely to suggest alternate crops, as cropping has always seemed to me one of the basic and most personal decisions photographers make.

Some terrific light captured - well done :)

LOL. I actually hesitated to use the term crop because I know how you feel about it. It was a poor choice of words on my part. The solution for me would be to redo the image, and I would do seperate exposures for sky and earth. I bet it is a bit more technical than I make it sound though. And of course, nature doesn't always comply.

... beautiful light colors details and composition ...

I actually like that the sky is so bright. It seems as if morning is about to burst through the trees and overtake everything. Joseph's term "rhythm" is an apt one. The trees seem to have lined themselves up in a perfect visual cadence such that as I scan the photo, each seems to be add a measured beat. Of course, as everyone has mentioned, the light is key here.

I think it's helpful here to distinguish between aesthetics and technique. The reason I would not crop is that I like the aesthetics, and the reason I mentioned the blown out sky and the seemingly unnatural yellow color beneath the blown out sky is to bring up technical, not aesthetic aspects. As I said originally, I like the energy, so Roger's aesthetic appeals to me and works for me. It is what I see as technical problem areas that I was calling attention to, not so they could be eliminated or because these areas' contributions to the feel of the photo aren't essential, but because I think if taken or handled with more technical proficiency, the photo itself would be more appealing to look at. While the mood of this photo is enhanced by the rhythm of the bright sky against the more subdued shaded areas, in my opinion it is not enhanced by being quite so blown out and by that one strong area of yellow having such a plastic or inorganic quality.

I couldn't agree with you more. I tend to focus on the technical because I haven't developed a style in "straight" photography quite yet( as you all have). Honestly, the reason rhythm came to mind is because that is a subject we are going over in design basics. I enjoy finding examples of my studies here on P.N. I also know who I can be blunt with here and not offend ( like Roger) :o) And to be more cliche, I wonder how b/w would change this image? I'm guessing a lot.

Although the blown-out sky may represent a technical flaw, that's not how I experienced it. I don't find yellow patch to be plastic or inorganic at all. It certainly doesn't seem realistic, but in this case, I think realism would make for a flat shot, whereas this more extreme version makes a vibrant statement. The great thing about art is that each of us respond differently. I thought the mood captured by the light was worth bending reality a bit.

Great discussion, guys. Thanks, and keep it rolling - this is what PN should be about. Joseph, I tried this in monochrome because of the strong contrast, but didn't find it nearly as interesting (anyway I'm a color freak). I've decided to rename this "Energy" in view of my neaxt posting.

It would be helpful to hear at this point what your intent was. The only aspect that seems non-real to me is that upper left quadrant and that did not seem to me intentional. I assumed you were handling this as a nature scene, pretty realistically (even though it has an ethereal flavor). I guess the difference it would make to me is this: If you had intended to make that part of the photo I'm questioning look unrealistic, I would question you as to why? It would seem odd given the realism of the rest of the photo. If you intended that section to be hyper-energetic but still realistic (which I assumed), then I simply think you could have done it better with a better exposure and/or a more refined technique. The third possibility, of course, would be that you wanted or find the entire photo to express either non-realism or realism and so you find that all the elements work well together.

Beautiful capture - great composition and gorgeous light.

Fred, my conscious intent was unquestionably pure realism. I say "conscious" because I find that in much of my photography desirable things happen unpredictably - or perhaps semi-predictably - so that I probably suspected that this effect would result from shooting into the sun. Of course, I tend to question the questionable, but I would say that the result here is probably what I saw in my mind's eye, even if not in my optical eye. It actually does approach reality, as I was dazzled by the sun at the time. I shot many images of another photographer shooting this scene (none as successful as this), and this was highly experimental. Hope this makes some sense.

You bring up an interesting point, which is "what's real, after all?" What was in your mind's eye is what you saw, regardless of what the scene may have looked like to someone else or to some objective eye. That's why I always have trouble using a term like "realism," even though I do for convenience at times. I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind your thought of cropping this to the left of the center picnic table. Had you questioned the area I'm having a problem with or was it some other matter? The main thing, of course, is your own satisfaction. And if that area doesn't dissatisfy you, then that's that. To me, the best part is that it was experimental. That never hurts!

Terrific!

Roger, this is beautiful. The title works perfectly. I love the color and silhouette, the composition, the streaks of light. It feels otherworldly, and would be except for the picnic benches which bring me back to reality. This is a classic you.

Thanks, Bob and John. Fred, I'm always questioning my own images. I'm insecure enough to "question the questionable". Hence my wondering whether to crop the left side - for me this image is highly debatable, though I like it.

I monochromed it and then jacked up the white levels. It looked good in large.

Thanks, Joseph. Will give it another shot.

Nice mood in this one, Roger. I would not crop left, I like the comoposition here. cheers Jana