Dog walker at sunrise

I like so much composition and light here... And I think the man is a good idea to make alive this landscape. It's good to me...

Thanks for all of the nice comments, I appreciate them and I appreciate the fact that I have a place like PN to share some of my photos with like minded photographers from all over the world.

I feel the framing is a bit neither here nor there. i.e. the top of the tree is out of the frame.
I'm inclined to crop it tight and bring the subject (walker) much closer so that the viewer can really appreciate the charm of the subject silhouette. Right now I feel the subject is a bit too distant. See attached alternative crop.

On a similar note, I wish the position of the sun was done with a bit more certainty.

Tim's one of my favorite photographers. And I noticed that many of his shots that really appeal, fall into this style. He has included clear, relatively simple elements. In this case, the tree line, the dog walker, and sun. In another shot, it might be an umbrella, a bench, and snow.

This isn't the type of photograph that has stunning detail. Instead, it's an image where our eye and attention is clearly directed to certain elements. While these aren't staged shots, they are carefully crafted. There is a deliberate exclusion of color in this instance, in other shots, he might include a single burst of color. Here, even the sun is almost sepia, albeit the sole bright point in the image.

Another aspect of the image is the distance from which one views the subject. This individual is alone with his dog and we're almost spying on him. There was a suggested crop above and I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it changes the mood of Tim's photograph quite a bit in my mind. Suddenly, we're so much closer to the dog walker, we become almost a part of the action. If he glanced to his left, he'd see us standing right there.

Thus, while the suggestion may or may not be a technically better crop, it dramatically changes the picture. So I see this photograph as using subject distance as a tool to create emotion or mood.

On the critical side, this isn't one of my favorite Holt shots. I think he's used all of these elements more effectively in past pictures. I'm ambivalent about the sepia tone. To me, sepia is a blunt instrument in a way, because it so obviously asks the viewer to put themselves into a nostalgic sort of mood. Sepia can work for me, but it's a rare shot where I feel that was the most effective choice.

Here, I ask myself if this shot would be as effective as a black and white? The one problem I see immediately as a black and white is the sky would likely lose a lot in the transition. Regardless, it's a beautiful image. And I quite like it.

Mark H's comment made me curious. With a little toning, the shot loses very little in monochrome. I like the color better, myself.

great picture! I would've cropped the tree on the left.

I guess, since we must quibble in these POW thingies, I would have loved to see the top of the tree. On another subject, I am a bit perturbed by the placement of the walker. Personally, I would have tried to catch him either directly in line with the sun, or almost all the way out of the frame on the left to give the shot balance of moving objects--sun and man. I like the color as it is and do not think monochrome improves it. A nice shot, nonetheless, and certainly deserving of the POW. Congrats.

I can see everyones point so far and I think they are all pretty accurate. For the last couple of years I have been trying to find scenes where the human element plays a small part in the image. I like to tuck the human element in a corner of the image, letting the natural world play a bigger role so to speak. I am also fascinated by trees and how they seem to convey a kind of emotion. Trees will last longer than we will I think, maybe that's why I enjoy them like I do.

I neither like the tighter crop, nor the monochrome. Everything is just perfect in this picture, especially the crop and the color.

I think Shun's suggestions for slightly different positions of the sun and the walker/dog are right on (again!). However, I've been in this situation before while wandering, a shot presents itself for only the briefest moment, and I have to take what was given to me. Had I been standing where Tim was and saw the walker 50 yards away, that may have been sufficient time to size up the situation, mentally place the sun and move to where that placement could occur, check to make sure I'm not using the 2-second delay, and wait for that perfect moment, all the while hoping the walker would give the dog just a little longer leash so that they could be separated. Sometimes we get that chance, sometimes we don't. Given what Tim has here, I wouldn't change a thing, especially a tighter crop -- I like context, and like Tim, I'd rather have the human element remain a relatively smaller component of the photograph.

" Sometimes we get that chance, sometimes we don't."

What I wonder about this quote/idea from Steve is whether making the best photo we can when we are there is the goal or is making the best photos possible the goal. Essentially, I remember being at a workshop where one person was showing incredible landscape images, very dramatic and of incredible beauty. Another participant was getting very upset because his images were from the same places (almost in the same tripod holes), but with bare skies and flat light. He complained that it wasn't fair that the other person was getting so much attention when he had been at the same places and just didn't have the luck to have had the same conditions.

We can certainly appreciate a photo for what it is, but if we want a lot of changes, then maybe it is just an OK photo at best. Tim has said he shoots mostly for himself and so it may not apply to him (may not even feel this way), but I go back to my original point and that is when you are serious about your photography you should post only your best images, not just the best you could do under the circumstances. Unless it is a unique moment in history, all we end up by doing the best under the circumstances is looking at a lot of sub par images.

" but I go back to my original point and that is when you are serious about your photography you should post only your best images, not just the best you could do under the circumstances." I am guilty John, I have about fifteen hundred photos posted here and I couldn't tell you which are my best. I am a serious amateur photographer though and I think it's fun and rewarding to share with the viewers my photos of the Milwaukee area. I am not a post-modern/conceptual kind of guy, I just walk around and take a lot of pictures.

Just for me a great picture which brings serenity and gives a treat to my eyes about beauty.
Just a regret about the cut branches at to top of the picture.
Cheers,

Marielou

An excellent composition. I toyed with cropping some of the left side, feeling it wasn't needed. It makes the composition weaker. I like the "Heaviness" the comp conveys to the right side.
Congrats Tim

The composition is very good. Great lighting and colours, almost monochrome that creates mood. Very well done.

This is the image I had in mind earlier. Hopefully Tim does not mind my modification. I would not place the sun directly above the walker and dog, though; a diagonal relationship between the two main focuses of attention makes it more interesting.

It may be a good idea to include the tallest tree in its entirety, but that will also make the subjects even smaller. I am not sure that would be a good tradeoff.

John A. wrote: "...but I go back to my original point and that is when you are serious about your photography you should post only your best images, not just the best you could do under the circumstances."

I try to post only my best images. I probably process only 2-3 from an outing that may have produced 100 photos, and I might post only half or fewer of those "best" images. However, of the ~350 that I have posted on PN, I have only 10-15 that I really, really like, the kind that would get me nominated for photographer of the year if there were such a thing. The other 98% are less than stellar, and those are the ones that would prevent me from getting that nomination. But I guess my goal is to share images that I like, and get some feedback on those that aren't quite stellar (I recently had some feedback that, IMO, moved a pretty good photo up by an order of magnitude). What I'm really sharing are experiences, and those are priceless, even if the photos weren't stellar. I'm like Tim -- I shoot for myself, it's the most enjoyable and rewarding experience in my life right now. The sharing of that kind of experience with others who may feel, in varying degrees, like I do is what makes photo.net so great and rewarding. (IMO, of course.)

Following up on Shun's modification (which is what I envisioned when I read his paragraph), I'll make a crude attempt to add my own. Disclaimer: my PS skills are not good, I just got out of bed, and I didn't spend much time on this. But I hope you get the idea of my vision of the "prefect" arrangement.

Tim,
Cliche or not, I like this image. I think the composition is quite clever and takes it a step beyond cliche. The arrangement of trees provides a structure to the image that provides more interest than the walker and sun alone. From left to right, the 1st, 3rd, and 5th trees frame the 2nd, 4th, and 6th tree. The framing trees also have a different shape and in a different plane that enhances the effect.
There are just a couple of, very minor, things that would further enhance the image for me. First, I think the sun is not needed and maybe a little distracting. Second, it would be great (possibly by lowering the camera) to see the legs of the walker and dog silhouetted. Neither of these things may have been possible at the time and are nitpicking an already good image.
John

beatiful very nice compotition

Rightly or wrongly, when I judge an image, I think right away about how difficult it was to make. I respect images that I think are hard to make and I respect less images that I think are easy to make.

For me an image is hard to make if: a) It's hard to visualize the image. The subject has been identified, seen and represented in a manner that is beyond my creative and artistic skill, b) The image was technically difficult to get. That is, special photographic technique was required to make the image, c) The subject is special in some way. The place was hard to get to, the subject is unusual, the moment is decisive, etc., d) The image is new/unique in it's approach, subject or method.

For me, this image meets none of these criteria so I could not find it to be a great image. Actually, I find this image to be one of Tim's least interesting. I think he has many others that are much better. Sorry Tim, I'm not down on you....I think you are one of the best on Photo.net. Cheers, JJ

Jeremy, that's a good list, but personally I would consider one more (for landscape and nature photos, at least): the photograph is so fleeting and the particular composition happens so rarely that it requires a great deal of time in the field, readiness with the right equipment, and the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time when it does happen. I'm speaking from experience here: one of my best photos, one that has won several awards and that often leaves people shaking their heads in amazement, was simply based on what I just described. However, perhaps this is what you mean by "the moment is so decisive." If it is, doesn't Tim's photograph fit that criterion?

Hi Stephen, I think we are saying roughly the same thing but I don't really see this moment as decisive in a special way though. In some sense, every moment only happens once so we could say all moments are decisive if we mean, it has only happened once. What I mean by decisive is that the moment itself tells us the story. We only see what the image conveys in that one particular moment. The guy walking the dog could have been in lots of positions/places wrt to the trees and the image would have worked. It's not like we look at this image and say 'aha, the photographer has shown us a moment we would have missed, a moment that captures the full meaning of what was happening." I'm thinking of images like Nick Ut's shot of Phan Thi Kim Phuc or Galen Rowel's image of the rainbow over the Potala Palace as admittedly exceptional examples.

To me, this is just another silhouette of a guy walking a dog. In this sense, I agree with a previous post here that identifies this moment to be somewhat cliche.

Like you, I do respect images of rare moments. But it's almost like a sin to me when someone who spends no time in the field happens to show-up during a once in a life-time moment and gets the shot. That gets my dander-up not my respect. That's why I preffer decisive moment rather than rare moment.

Maybe I'm just being bitter for all the hours I've spent waiting for something that never happens. Cheers, JJ

When I go out for a walk, I look for some nice light and interesting subjects to shoot. I don't expect to see a "decisive moment" or a "rare moment." I want to find something that I can look back on later and say "that's the way it really was that nice morning last October." I want to be reminded of the past to appreciate the present and taking a photo, cliched or not, seems to do that for me.

I belive the Elves picked a winner!