Are you nuts? It’s exactly the symmetry of the mirrored and juxtaposed mountain range and the wire and the stones, over the absolute straight centerline, that takes this from another cliched “look, I found another landscape with absolutely straight lines!” photo.Nice example of hand-holding. I would crop foreground out when printing. Maintaining a full frame image only works when maintaining a full frame image works.
Cropping out the foreground will also give the same image a shift-lens would have produced on 6x4.5, without a shift lens.
Are you nuts? It’s exactly the symmetry of the mirrored and juxtaposed mountain range and the wire and the stones, over the absolute straight centerline, that takes this from another cliched “look, I found another landscape with absolutely straight lines!” photo.
It took minutes of care to line that up.
Nothing wrong with your interpretation for sure it is a great image and I hope you didn't think I meant YOU should crop that out. I'm used to working with view camera with tilt so I personally would be upset and crop that out or used front rise only it were my image. I occasionally get unintended negatives like that because, as you may or may not know, closely examining the very top of the ground glass for a sharp image can be difficult, especially with an 8x10 camera high on a tripod.Are you nuts? It’s exactly the symmetry of the mirrored and juxtaposed mountain range and the wire and the stones, over the absolute straight centerline, that takes this from another cliched “look, I found another landscape with absolutely straight lines!” photo.
It took minutes of care to line that up.
Nothing wrong with your interpretation for sure it is a great image and I hope you didn't think I meant YOU should crop that out. I'm used to working with view camera with tilt so I personally would be upset and crop that out or used front rise only it were my image. I occasionally get unintended negatives like that because, as you may or may not know, closely examining the very top of the ground glass for a sharp image can be difficult, especially with an 8x10 camera high on a tripod.
We should aspire to that.It's very subjective. Personally, I like both photos, but I find the out-of-focus foreground to be somewhat jarring. My brain attempts to process the foreground into being as sharp and detailed as the rest of the photo, and it simply doesn't work. I agree that it adds something to the frame, but I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negative.
But it's not my photograph. My interpretation isn't, and shouldn't be. the same as yours.
It's very subjective. Personally, I like both photos, but I find the out-of-focus foreground to be somewhat jarring. My brain attempts to process the foreground into being as sharp and detailed as the rest of the photo, and it simply doesn't work. I agree that it adds something to the frame, but I'm not sure if the positives outweigh the negative.
But it's not my photograph. My interpretation isn't, and shouldn't be. the same as yours.
Aesthetics is not ultimately subjective, and is not “a matter of taste”.
That is a late twentieth’s century trope, via diluted and misappropriated enlightenment and later art critique and theory (in the idealistic rush for general education and liberal arts for everyone).
One of the first things to remember when taking a photo is that you are dealing with a two dimensional medium, and it will be first and foremost be experienced as that.
Matt, thank you for your comments!I too found the out of focus foreground jarring in the example posted. I am much more comfortable with an out of focus foreground that transitions gradually into an in focus subject.
FWIW, this is the crop that appeals to me:
Now it’s just like a lot of other “lines through a landscape” images.Aesthetics may not be mainly subjective, but they are variable.
They can vary with medium, with geography, with cultural influence and with time.
I too found the out of focus foreground jarring in the example posted. I am much more comfortable with an out of focus foreground that transitions gradually into an in focus subject.
But I agree that my interpretation doesn't affect the validity of yours.
Tat being said, I'm always happy to suggest a crop. Just as I'm always happy to receive suggestions from others. I think that a good photograph tends to contain all sorts of value, and it is not unusual to find that when others come upon your photographs "fresh" they see things that aren't as obvious to the photographer, and prioritize things in ways that may make better use of what is there.
FWIW, this is the crop that appeals to me:
View attachment 256638
And by cropping, I increased the emphasis on the many lines that remain.You robbed it of its interesting geometry, in the dual translation and mirroring of some of the horizon lines.
It is your photograph, so of course it is. That is the fundamental concept behind being a visual artist. Determine what you like and show it to the rest of the world,This is a better photo than
..
This
And by cropping, I increased the emphasis on the many lines that remain.
Which increased interest in them.
It also increased "slightly" the weight given to the background to the scene - the almost invisible but still very important features of the hills in the background.
But not everyone will weigh those different factors the same way I would.
Any time I see reference to compositional "rules", I suggest that people spend some time with similar compositional rules in different cultures. It may give them some sense about how inductive such rules are - induced from many representations that reveal common expectations and experience, rather than derived from some sort of first principals.
Compositional rules can be handy shorthand, but they are dangerous if used as crutches. And they are too soft and insubstantial to ever be "broken".
And you are looking for appraisal, approval and ultimately prestige from your images, if you show them off.It is your photograph, so of course it is. That is the fundamental concept behind being a visual artist. Determine what you like and show it to the rest of the world,
And no, it’s not my photo.
Nothing aped here - and to assign such a label to someone's personal preferences is on the edge of rudeness.By your crop, you “revealed” yourself as part of the modern school of mock essentialism or folk minimalism.
Knowing when to cut and when not to, is essential in any art.
Being naively, aping/learned minimalistic to the detraction of the depth and roundedness of an photo, is just as bad as being naively too inclusive.
Every element should play a role, but less is not always more.
Of course a lot depends on the scale the image is meant to be viewed at.
Photos for mice can’t convey the same “ideas” as a wall sized mural.
There is an unfortunate tendency to compose for Instagram or photo competition judges scrolling through a list of thumbs.
I’m sorry you took it as a personal insult.Nothing aped here - and to assign such a label to someone's personal preferences is on the edge of rudeness.
I have preferences, and they are no doubt quite conservative in many ways, but I would never have the unmitigated gall as to tell someone that their preferences are naive.
Or to tell someone that I could do better than they have done with a photo that matters to them.
Sorry old chap, but just the opposite is true. The OOF foreground is simply ugly and out of place. Take a look at Van Gogh, who used a lot of foreground.But you’d make the composition much less appealing.
This is a better photo than
View attachment 256607
This
View attachment 256608
Van Gogh is possibly the worst example you could give. His paintings are basically nothing but highly swirly bokeh.Sorry old chap, but just the opposite is true. The OOF foreground is simply ugly and out of place. Take a look at Van Gogh, who used a lot of foreground.
I am so enthralled we have such an expert on composition and art contributing to this discussion and the site in general.Van Gogh is possibly the worst example you could give. His paintings are basically nothing but highly swirly bokeh.
But the history of painting is full of blurry and indistinct foreground elements. It’s a way of framing and it’s a way of creating context.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?