Raptor

A low-cloud / high-fog kind of day, dull and dreary unless one is out with a

camera. I intentionally included a lot of sky, but if you're not crazy about

my choice I'd love to know. Any comments and suggestions are

appreciated. Thanks.

I have the most difficulty in doing any type of processing on these type of scenes with lots of white. There is a part of me that  finds the sky too white but on the other hand, that in itself accentuates the forms of the tree trunks and the solitary bird. I asked myself what i would do with this scene. I would take this image and then for a second one which is very different,   move in much closer (or with a telephoto) with either a square format or or a portrait  mode to focus on those clump of trees on either side of the raptor.

Just my two cents.

We are so different and each one can have another vision about what we see,may be this is very good because this thing is the engine of movement further,I think.I said this words after I read Tony opinion,me I like landscape format you did, that gives a sens of space here and the raptor is just enough seen to change the balance of this image,don't need more details of him.In crop version,square one,is something broke,the essence of message disappear.This is my opinion and I am glad share this with you and Tony.

Tony and Radu, I appreciate your comments -- they are some of the most substantial comments I've been privileged to receive in a long time.

I have a different take on my own photograph.  To me, the main subject is not the bird, and I really don't want to emphasize it any more than it is already depicted.  I consider this image to be just as much of a graphic as a photograph (although I don't think I could do a very good job of explaining the difference between those two).  That's why the white sky, something I usually try to avoid at all costs, works for me here.  As Tony said, it emphasizes the dark forms of the twisted trees, and that's important to me.

I've also violated the kind of crop I would normally do, which would be with the top edge just above the tree line.  But such a crop would move this from being a graphic to being more of a photograph, and that's not what I wanted.

So another thought came to me -- how about a gradient in the sky so that it's not entirely white?  That might be a good compromise -- I'm not sure.  Anyway, I did a gradient on the original jpeg, although I was greatly constrained by jpeg artifacts that showed up when I darkened the upper part of the sky.  Had I started working with the original TIFF, I would have made it somewhat darker, and there would have been no artifacts.  At any rate, I think this illustrates the idea, and it is attached.

I'm going to have a folder of images that I really like for one reason or another but that generally don't resonate with other viewers.  This photo will probably be in that folder along with a couple of others.  All of them violate the guidelines (some call them "rules") of good composition, light, etc., and that's why it's understandable to me that they generally don't receive favorable reviews.  Nevertheless, I still like them to a very considerable degree.  It's part of the different visions that Radu suggested.

Here's a better rendition of the gradient I had in mind for the sky.  Also, I've reposted this in the critique forum with a larger view of the version with the gradient in the sky.  That can be found here.

Hi everyone,

This photo is really beautiful to me, and I like this graphic composition. I'm not completely familiar with the composition guidelines yet, and they seem less important to my eyes than the feeling given by this image. The trees look like trying to reach something too far ahove the image, giving a mood of despair and loneliness. Very aesthetic for me.

edit : I've just seen the reworked version. For me the one with the lighter gradient is better, even though the sky is heterogen. 

Stephen,I read your comment and idea to apply gradient to the sky looks interesting and gives a different mood to this image,the fact is: basis is original photo that I like so as it is and some version with new ideas can be also very attractive,so wish you good light and nice moments further.

I like the observation made by Latil:  he's less familiar with the "guidelines" than the feeling given by the image when viewed with the eyes.  Precisely!  For this photograph and all other photographs.

There were some interesting observations made on the other version with a gradient as Radu mentioned, and you might like to read some of those by clicking on the left arrow to get to that image (they are side-by-side in the folder).

All of your comments are greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

If you titled the image to "Raptor", then you have to compose the image around it. As Tony all ready suggested.  Then. We are sometime in a no wen situation with the sky, when the ground subject is interesting or beautiful, then we have to help the composition to add a small detail of unobtrusive cloudy, sky. Witch would be very easy in this case and would increase the image flatness.

And! If the main subject not the Bird, as you stated, then, the composition is to tight, You have to add more of the land, hills, clear horizon, left or right,  to the composition to more highlight the group of those trees. 

Cheers.

Very raw sketch.

This version is (only personal opinion) is far better than all of the others ,it just tell me how much powerful our eyes are ,the bird is probably less than I/1000 of the the whole image ,yet our eyes are able to contrast it against the whole empty sky ,and the complicated shapes and branches of the trees.

A fine image.

Bela, I'm not so sure that just because I gave this the title of "Raptor" that I have to compose the image around it.  I would have made this photo without the bird.  But I also feel its presence adds considerable interest, just as a person in a landscape photo often does.  As Saad said, the impact it has is far greater than would be suggested by just the amount of space it occupies.  So I guess I'm depending somewhat on viewers looking at this photo and instantly seeing what I saw -- a group of trees with a bird sitting at the highest point.  If viewers are disappointed that they can't see more detail in the bird because of the photo's title, then I need to select a different title.

BTW, attached is another version with the foreground much reduced to hopefully enhance the graphic aspect of the photo.