greg_sommerville

I love this picture. It's very abstract and graphic looking. I think having the entire tree in the cloud would make a different picture, not a better one. The way the tree splits the cloud in two is brilliant, if you ask me.

Beautiful. The only thing I might change is how the woman's shadow merges into the shadow of the tree. If it was separate, and it was almost all the way into the lower left corner, it would be perfect, because you'd have a single visual line of the woman in the upper right to her shadow in the lower left.

I wonder if other artists have such fierce arguments about technique? Do sculptors have violent arguments about what kind of clay they use, or painters about brushstrokes?

 

For myself, this is simply an attractive image. Obviously the colors aren't real-life, but that doesn't matter to me in the least. I don't judge photographs based on how they were created - I judge them on the emotional reaction I get from them. However, I realize that there are a number of photographers (especially landscape photographers) who denounce any image that isn't completely "realistic", whatever that is. My opinion is that there is very little difference between manipulating an image via choice of film, lens, or filters, via darkroom manipulation, or by manipulating it with a digital editor post-exposure. Those are simply techniques to allow the artist to express himself. What matters is the final image.

 

However, I'm very aware that there is a vocal percentage of photographers who believe that there is only one way to produce a photo. They look down their nose at you if you shoot print film rather than slide film, and don't even start talking about digital with them. They'd have the entire world shooting with view cameras if that was possible, and developing their own work in homemade darkrooms. As a relative newcomer (1 year) to photography, this seems a little silly to me.

 

I think part of the problem is that photography is an art, but there are a lot of people (including some photographers) who don't see it that way. Maybe it's because anybody can grab a point and shoot and start taking pictures. Maybe it's because we interpret reality, rather than completely manufacture our own reality as a painter or sculptor does. Maybe it's because our main focus is finding a subject, choosing a composition, adjusting lighting, and then simply pressing a button - not nearly as difficult as laboring for six months on a mural. I'm not sure, but there's a definite feeling of inferiority, and some people seem to feel that the only way to overcome this is via rigorous adherance to rules.

I like the framing, except the bushes at the bottom merge into the bridge. It'd be nice if those were minimized, or not shown in some way. I think the framing of the tree is plenty.

I can see that you are putting your focus on the fly, but the center of the flower grabs my eye, due to the reflected light (strobe?), and it's out of focus. Maybe if you'd gone to a higher f/stop so that both the fly and the center of the flower were in focus...