Nature's Overhead 'Irrigation' for Almond Orchard

Overhead Irrigation is destined to break a longstanding drought

threatening this almond orchard and other agriculture in California's

tremendously productive San Joaquin (Central Valley) area, which is

largely fed by irrigation from presently sparse melting snow pack in the

nearby Sierra Mountains. Your ratings and critiques are invited and

most welcome; if you rate harshly or very critically; please submit a

helpful and constructive comment; please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

I know this may be heresy, especially since I'm known as a very tight cropper, but there is no more and no less empty space at the bottom than precisely called for.

I invite your crop or edit to show how to improve the composition of this photo by eliminating what you call 'empty space' but which I see with tractor lines which form part of the composition and the color or dirt, which also forms part of the composition.

How about giving it a go; teach me how to do it better. I couldn't figure it out for myself. This is the best I could do.

;~))

Can you do it. I will readily concede if you do, but sometimes 'empty space' also fills a function (after all this is an agricultural shot, and agriculture is also about 'empty space' sometimes.

;~)) ;~))

John (Crosley) (feeling puckish)

It"s as though I'm looking at something I could see driving down the highway. The compostion lacks initmacy and imagination. The linear arrangement of the almond trees is inherently inviting and yet we're stopped short. No individual bloom is present, our brains tell us the white areas are blooms but we don't really see it and hope for more. The perspective chosen only provides a glimpse of what is presumably a very extensive orchard (most of them are.) I would have advised closer and lower which could have captured the scale of the length of a single row while still capturing all of the vertical element--and eliminating an utterly pointless foreground. The beehives are an element that seem to be an afterthought; at least one set of them could have been brought into the composition in a more prominent way, perhaps even controlling, way.

In the end, there's no construct of immersion and even what natural immersion was present--the depth of the lines of trees and empty space between them--has been foreclosed by the angle.

Looking at something you could see driving down the highway -- a hundred miles of it, but there are no exits and one has to choose one's exit and drive a lot of back roads just to get near these trees.

You write a mean critique, but I think you have missed the point of the whole composition, which saddens me. You wish that I placed something in the foreground, much as you place foam and tiny (or violent) waves in foreground in your seaside photos, but this is not a seaside photo.

And it also is not a conventional landscape at all.

In fact it is a prototypical photo of just what it depicts -- the land, the product of the land and the sky. Without so much space devoted to the land (and its patterns of tractoring in the land, the orchard and its tractoring through the rows, and the evenness of the rows, you would miss the point, and it seems you have anyway in your quest to make it look like a textbook photo - perhaps an orchard seen with a bloom in the foreground. That is not possible the way these orchards are laid out.

All the blooms in these orchards merge into one solid mass of whiteness and a little pinkness if you're very early in season, but not here, unless one gets up very high, but the Central Valley essentially is flat, unless one photographs with an ultra long tele from Interstate 5, and in that case you'll get a friendly little reminder from the California Highway Patrol that photographing from the elevations of the roadside of an Interstate is strictly prohibited. And there are no feeder and/or frontage roads with any elevation for almost a hundred miles that I could see.

What may seem 'pointless'' to you, is not to me, and I am the ultimate person who must be pleased, although I do ask for your critique, and obviously this photo has not pleased you. But you hold it to differing standards (and I know what they are), and I do not choose to try to meet those particular standards).

Notice that I purposely split the horizon in mid-frame. That's not 'rule of thirds' which I eschew sometimes, especially here. Sometimes the 'Rule of Thirds' works and sometimes it doesn't.

This is a photo about universality and not about pleasing a photo technician with 'rules' and abiding by technicalities or expectations.

One has absolutely to feel like one has been there and actually is there in fact, which is what I sense that this photo evokes in you . . . and for all that it is a success, for you have not in fact been there.

The hives could not be part of the composition with standard lenses or any lenses if they were so close to trees, without being so diminutive . . . .there was not way to 'get up close' without cropping the trees severely and eliminating the sky, which is part of the 'subject'.

I am known as an extremely tight cropper, so rather than try to critique what I didn't crop, you might spend some time looking at my other, very tightly cropped photos and try to see why this photo also is rather tightly cropped - right to where I wanted it, with nothing extraneous left out and nothing extraneous included -- it's exactly what I wanted.

Yours is the critique of someone who has read some photo books and taken some successful photos, and thinks he understands all of photography and perhaps composition, but I draw from a different well . . . . my photos draw from literally thousands of sources . . . . and run the gamut (pardon the expression) of compositional devices.

I have no hesitation, as here, in splitting the horizon dead center in the frame, for instance, rather than trying to employ the hoary 'rule of thirds', although that 'rule' has its places in certain circumstances.

Try to look beyond conventional photography, and see if you can see why I took AND posted this particular photograph. It is at once very placid, yet it has some dynamic tension in it (compare top to bottom, for instance), and some geometry also.

It is far from perfect, but it is more than you give it credit for.

I do thank you for sharing you viewpoint, as I did invite that, but I did not promise that I'd agree.

Early on in my PN career, lacking as much knowledge as I now have about what and why I shoot as I do, I might have just tucked my tail between my legs if a senior member critiqued me so severely, but now I am more secure, and ask you to 'look again' and this time from a different,and perhaps more mature perspective.

You might be surprised what you will see.

(Do you look at the work in galleries, museums, Aperture Magazine and Foundation,Black and White Magazine, Lenswork and similar? If not, you might try expanding your horizons. If you have, it does not show in your critique,as it seems rather narrow)

And that is not a criticism that is meant to 'strike back' - it's straight shooting from a guy who long ago recognized that PN critiques (even the very best) were about similar photos dissected by the 'authors' of those photographs in the giant fishbowl that is Photo.net.

I try to go outside that 'fishbowl' with varying success.

[This is not supposed to be an 'intimate' photo at all, but rather a 'universal photo, but it does have 'imagination' even if you could not spot it. There is a point to the foreground, and I invite you to ponder why and what, even if it is not to your personal photographic taste. I do know how to take the photo you're critiquing that you think I should have taken and indeed may have taken that photo that day, but that is not this photo and this was not intended to be 'that photo']

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

John (Crosley)

John,

I very much like this photo. It attracted me even in the diminutive size visible in the critique forum.

I think its greatest strength is probably the well crafted composition. I like the echo back and forth between sky and earth here. The earth is divided primarily into two distinct diagonal swathes which are nicely mirrored by the two directions of cloud banks in the sky.

The placement of the rightmost full tree is effective in anchoring the composition -- my eye travels through the frame in a very pleasing sweep clockwise around that tree. Myy eye is lead first by the dirt track and then up by the trees on the left and into the sky which sweeps me back where I began. I find the bee-boxes give a sort of rhythm to the composition that is quite appealing.

Given the beautiful balance and the overarching harmonious quality of the composition, the evenly divided frame seems perfectly apropos.

I might have encouraged you to consider lightening the whole scene, maybe (maybe) even increasing the overall contrast slightly; however, your title makes the connection with on-coming rain clear and the subdued lighting and lower contrast are appropriate to that condition. But, it should be noted that had it not been for your title, I would have missed the sense that these clouds bore oncoming precipitation.

I am slightly disturbed/bothered by the strange round circles in the top left corner. They could be gray and white balloons? Maybe they are after effects of a rough cloning job? But, my point is that they draw the eye. In such a delightfully minimal scene, such small things matter all the more. In fact, the small black dot top right also calls too much attention to itself.

Overall, an affective and interesting photo. I have not yet checked your portfolio as whole. I hope you have other work with a similar approach.

Ian

P.S. I think you expect more from the average PN member than is reasonable. An honest response is all that can really be expected.

The audience whom you've created this for, the audience whom you hope will appreciate its subtler qualities is quite thinly spread out here on PN. After much time, I have found more than a few such photographers (I can share a shortlist if requested). But, compared to the total membership they are a small group -- probably less than 1%.

I might subscribe to Aperture, B&W Magazine, Lenswork, and even the new Colour Mag (from the same people as B&W). I might live in a large metropolitan area with a vibrant art scene and attend gallery openings. But, I am not about to expect the same from the audience on PN. Maybe I might have such aspirations on a forum dedicated to contemporary art; but, not here.

Lastly, if you choose to visit my pages. Please recognize that I have liberally mixed highly derivative work which I hope might have a commercial value with more personal projects that I aspire might one day grace the pages of a publication like Lenswork. The former has garnered me many accolades on PN, the best of the latter has garnered few (if any) comments.

Finally what you like is most important, I like the idea of having the tire marks in the foregorund, but slightly lower angle to accentuate it could have been more effective. I also noticed those but could not hold my eye there and hence the suggestion. I personally liked the orchards and sky here. All the best. Regards

+Lalit

I may have felt a little self-conscious defending my work so vigorously after a thorough critique above, but I felt strongly about it, then came your well-crafted critique with a its own critical understanding of what it was I was trying to do.

You correctly drew out the flaws (poor cloning -- I wasn't sure was visible -- overhead wire that protruded was cloned out and must be redone, and also a black spot I was simply unaware of, upper right, that is a spot healing tool job, which must be tackled.

In all respects you have greatly honored my artistic vision rather than critiquing something that you imagined in your mind's eye that I 'should have taken but didn't' as the prior critique did.

And your trove of knowledge is well-founded, which causes me to sit up and take notice.

I do NOT do many landscapes; I primarily photograph people, so this is rather an anomaly for me, but I have Renaissance values and value versatility. I also value 'artistic vision' and 'not following the herd' as i search within any genre for my own mode of expression, high or low scores notwithstanding. I'll post a photo I think may get 3/3s if I happen to like it, and try to learn from critiques, even though i have thousands of rates . . .. I trust my own judgment about my photography, but am willing to learn, especially from photographers of great skill and learning such as yourself.

It is clear you did understand this photo, and for that I am grateful, because it is not easily pigeon-holed, and I do not want to wage an uphill fight here on Photo.net, but I will if necessary, as I did with my now very successful people photos, which are now a PN hallmark and which are earning me fame (and possible gallery exposure.). I'm told they will do well in a gallery setting, and I'm working on that now, with an appointment today at 2:00 p.m., even to that end.

(It's a bad time for the fine arts, so if I fail, it may just be the times, too; and if I succeed, it will attest to the strength of my work times several.

I am very impressed by your work and see Dennis Aubrey, whose work and opinion i respect greatly, has been there before . . . . that is a great indicator for me.

Thank you for honoring me and my work with the grace of your presence and a dignified critique . . . .that was helpful to me in its criticism and respectful in its understanding of what I was trying to accomplish.

John (Crosley)

Thank you for noting the 'sky tones' -- i chose the time of winter to photograph and the time of day to photograph precisely because of the sky. If the sky had not been like that,I would not have photographed. I purposely dialed back on highlights and worked on contrast to 'bring it out.

As to the 'bee boxes' (hives), they are essential, here as 'accents' which cause one to 'hold interest' and notice, they are presented as 'threes', and in a vanishing scale.

Careful attention was paid to this composition, though i am not saying I labored long and hard over the choices. ('m a speed photographer; I see what I like, frame it and take it. Ansel Adams might still be unpacking his mule as I got out of there, exposed frame in hand.)

Best to you.

John (Crosley)

I've reread what I wrote and it does seem heavy; apologies for the tenor if not the substance.

As to the substance, I've been sitting here giving it a great deal of thought and suppose I need to say that I'm very well acquainted with the charms of I-5--which so many people find boring--and should've so explained. My familiarity with the scene is certainly coloring my perspective on what I would find "more" compelling, "more" intimate.

You're quite right that the shoulders of I-5 are not an appropriate spot to stop and take a photo of the valley and there are logistical problems with finding an appropriate exit, frontage roads, etc. Very difficult.

I will disagree with the idea that capturing a bloom up close precludes capturing some, even a great deal, of the scale. It can be done.

Best Wishes.

I'm glad you took the time and considerable effort to read my long essay above in response to your critique, and that you took it to heart.

You really needn't apologize, we're all grown people here, and I just took a different photo than you were envisioning I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN.

This was one photo,and you were envisioning I should have taken another.

And I know precisely the photo you envision i should have taken, and exactly how to take that photo. I didn't have the geographical circumstances or the opportunity to take my signature version of that photo, or I might have, but I wouldn't have posted it; it's a cliche of the Washington Press corps every spring when the blossoms bloom along the D.C.Tidal estuary. It's also a 'how to take a beautiful photo with the blossom in the foreground photo book illustratoin photo. Why re-invent the wheel?

So, yes, I could have taken the photo you envisioned, but it would have been 'your' photo, not mine, and it also might have resembled those 50 years of newspapers photos of spring tree flowers in bloom we see every year from the District of Columbia - or at least some of them.

Or those from 'Sunset Magazine'

This is my 'unique view'; it looks ordinary, and it is ordinary to those who have trod that ground, but in a way it also is beautiful.

I sought to capture both the ordinariness of the moment and the drama with the stable, brown earth, the trees abloom and the swirling threatening skies overhead, without worrying about a horizon splitting my frame (most probably didn't even realize that it was so split before I pointed it out, as I break almost every photo book 'rule' on a routine basis, just so long as it 'looks' right. to me.

Think of it as this: On the ground is a certain geometry (composition), with lines of tractor dragging a dirt spreader/sifter and geometric rows of trees, above that the visual cacophony of blossoms and then the transition to the swirling almost angry clouds, which threaten the peacefulness below.

It's almost a story, isn't it?

Complete with dynamic tension.

Just like almost many of my other photos.

So, I could indeed (if required) have shot the textbook/press corps spring tree cliche with the budded branch in foreground, but eschewed that, for a more complex (and perhaps perplexing) approach.

Some get me and others don't.

For some my work is readily evident and appealing, for others it's an acquired 'taste' and others never will get it or like it.

That's just life.

(and I produce and post lots of crap, too, with few apologies. If I like it or am interested in an audience 'take' on it, it may get posted, but once posted, it almost never gets taken down.)

Special thanks for returning, but don't feel chastened; this is free speech, and your response was invited. Sometimes things get vigorous here, but there never is anything personal (and you take wonderful photos, and not cliches at all).

My very best to you; thanks for returning.

John (Crosley)

I see the 'balloons' from faulty cloning referred to in a critique above. I probably uploaded a prior version where that was more evident than the one I expected I had posted (I'm embarrassed.) .

Even MY cloning is not that bad usually.

I'll eventually get around to fixing it by replacing this photo, but in the interest of fairness to those who read these critiques, I'll leave it posted as an original for some time.

Serves me right for being careless.

((((((

John (Crosley)

Because it just dawned on me.

This is a photo about how bare earth with moisture turns minerals into earthly abundance.

Nothing less.

In short, it is the story of life.

In the foreground, the lines are suggestive of two intersecting planes - the foreground tractoring lines intersect with the tractoring of the rows and the rows of trees.

The trees are well-defined at the bases (though obscured by those essential nurturers of life, the honeybees - without which almost all horticultural life would stop -- only to get lost in the diffuseness and abundance of the blossoms of the fruit (here almonds -- a'monds to some)

Above that, the source of all that change, the light (diffuse) and just as essential, the water, for without the water, nothing blooms at all or is sustained in growth.

Now, that water may not fall on the orchard and only in distant mountains but it will return as irrigation water for these same trees.

In short, this photo is an allegory for horticultural life.

Nothing less.

How silly of me not to have noted that above.

And that's one reason it was posted with the 'bare' earth.

Only the bareness will emphasize the mineral content - the soil with its clays, its loam and its sand, all awaiting some sun and some water, plus some seeds, a few bees and some human labor to turn the minerals of the earth into abundant foodstuff.

There, I've said it.

Funny, how I post a photo and don't even know why, then get defensive when others suggest that i don't know what I'm doing.

Of course, I do, even if I've not told myself.

Until this minute.

John (Crosley)