# 325

Although I am not entirely new to photography, I am always eager to

learn, so any comment will be appreciated very much.

I really like this simple, elemental photograph of a row of leafless, silhouetted trees.  I like the gradations of light in the sky as well.  If there is one thing I might change, it would be to crop the water in the near foreground.  My reasoning is that light objects tend to attract the viewer's attention, and I find that the water takes away some of the emphasis on the line of trees, and it also adds a bit of unnecessary (and perhaps unwanted) complexity to the simple scene.  I'd also experiment with making the light portions of the photo even darker, removing some detail and making the trees even stronger silhouettes to see if that would affect the overall scene and mood in a positive way (not sure if it would, but I think it's worth trying).

I agree with that Stephen has said except for the cropping, to me the water in the foreground adds to the theme of horizontal banding in the image. But a strongly agree that if the image were to be printed down a bit and even softened up a bit it would be in my mind so much stronger. Everything is there.

 

Best regard RJE

Richard, that's a good point about the horizontal banding.  I'm still uncertain, and if I were printing I'd have to have two versions to look at in order to decide.  Or have one for the living room and the other for the family room.

Hi Stephen and Richard.

Thanks for your comments. You point exactly at the dilemmas in the picture, that I myself have struggled with and about which I admit I have not reached any final decision. I have let water stripe in the foreground be and I've increased the contrast in the foreground, trying to create a depth effect in the picture, which is otherwise very two dimensional. I know exactly where on the curve in "curves" the trees are located, and can regulate them and in the sky behind them pretty accurately. If I make them darker the depth in the images disappears but in turn it becomes more "iconic" etc. If I make the picture to "iconic" I think it tends to turn it into a cliché. I have tried to remove some of the smaller trees between the large trees. I'm usually fairly good with the use of layer masks, but it proved almost impossible because of subtle differences in the gray. Thanks’ again for your comments. I will struggle on.

Re. Lars

I think there is only so far you can manipulate nature. This isn't like painting where the painter is free to include or exclude any objects he wishes. Unless we go into heavy manipulation we are somewhat limited by the subject matter itself. For me, this picture works very well. The water in the foregound sems almost like a heartbeat, itself a symbol of continuity that is echoed by the rhythmic progression of trees in the background. The smaller trees and bushes don't bother me one bit, they are merely lovely diversity within the larger uniformity.

i like this shot, i like the foggy background and the bw choice