Thank you so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos
Printable View
Thank you so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos
Hello, I'm just arrived in this community.
This is a shot taken in the kindergarten of my children, near Lake Maggiore, Italy. In front of me the quiet, behind the din of the children ;-)
Rodenstock Grandagon 115, Tmax 400 4x5 in HC110 1:47, printed on Rollei vintage 111 24x30
Attachment 151168
Andrea
Ops, maybe this shot was better for Trees thread and not Landscapes, but I don't know how to change or delete it... I'm sorry
One from a couple nights ago at a neighborhood open-space park (lucky to have them)
Arca Swiss F-Line (old 171mm frames)
120mm Super-Symmar
Arista Ultra 400 in Rodinal 1+25 (experiment -- think I'll stick with lower dilutions from here on out)
A bit of back tilt on the rear standard, and a bit of rise on the front. I'm pretty new to this, but I'm happy with the result.
https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7352/2...0181c394_b.jpg
cherry knolls park by Mike Thomas, on Flickr
I think it's fantastic. I mistook the framing when I stopped scrolling at a point that made the frame a perfect square, so I understood eventually to keep scrolling. The picture stands just fine as framed, and can even stand a different format (square!) so I think you've got two perfectly good images here!Quote:
Originally Posted by mathomas
Andrea, I hope you don't find my critique too critical, but I feel that the scene has too much foreground in it. Is there a reason you framed it almost half trees / half ground?Quote:
Originally Posted by darkrat
I agree: It's an interesting image, but much stronger when cropped to be a square ... in my opinion. Anyway, as I said, interesting shot!Quote:
Originally Posted by krishmandal
This is a subject that came up on another forum I use (that a couple of other posters here I know of use as well), and in the "Landscapes" thread, someone replied to a traditionally aesthetically 'correct' image
The thought had crossed my mind a few times. I am an absolute sucker for just slavishly following the rule of thirds, and seems that many people quite easily question it when it isn't followed unquestioningly. I understand that 'breaking' the rule may be hard to execute well and should probably be 'broken' with pre-meditated deliberation? I'm not sure.. a lot of the photographers from this other forum seem to haphazardly ignore this 'rule of thirds' and pull it off exceptionally well. The criticism of Andrea's photo just seems to be pushing it back into the 'rule of thirds' or something, I'm not quite sure how to articulate my argument but I am becoming more aware of the rule of thirds being a super-dominant defining law in landscape (in my short 10 or so years of taking photos)... I'm not sure, perhaps trying to stimulate argument here, perhaps a little drunk... but I appreciate people trying to challenge the rules...? (Unless this is an old, tired argument in which case I will shutup and go away)Quote:
Would be a lot better if you weren't trying to slavishly follow the rule of thirds.
Alex, I think you make a great point. A good composition is not merely putting something on as many thirds as possible.
My eye is drawn to the center line formed by the pathway and tree, so if anything I personally would've considered taking a step left myself and tried to make an inverted cross shape between that line and the horizon - but as it is I think it's engaging, and the tones are certainly excellent. Nice work!
I always need the gaze of a third party to better interpret my own photographs. The foregroung is so big because I like to give breath to the eye, although the result is actually a bit "weak". Live there is a greater three-dimensionality, especially "entering" in the woods.Quote:
Originally Posted by krishmandal
Thanks for the tips!