Its been a while still trying

[Kaclarity]

Still learning C&C please JimC

[kdoc856]

Hi, Jim

I cant' tell you how many in-forest shots I have taken with the greatest of anticipation, and then trashed the thing. The camera just can't compete with our eyes in taking in panorama, vastness, or a plethora of detail. We have two eyes, the camera just the one. We can separate detail and take it in piece by piece, but the camera is fairly poor at depth, and compresses everything. So... my solution... I quit taking forest pictures unless I have a very specific object, with clear separation. I'd be interested in the views of some other CiC folks

Kevin

[Geoff F]

Yes Kevin, I know what you mean and have frequently been in the same position.

Jim's photo is technically fine but lacks any real subject. And I find that out of focus branch in the bottom left corner distracting.

Maybe try a slightly tighter crop to remove a bit from the right side and bottom? Or possibly a fraction from both sides.

[Polar01]

I love shooting in the woods, fall, winter, and spring summer you will not find me there unless the woods are something secondary to the main subject such as a waterfall, river or lake.

Cheers:

Allan

[wlou]

I love shooting in the woods too, possibly because I have access in a short distance and go there often. First, there is the light, so different than the city, filtered in green in summer. Then there is the smell. It contribute to this welness feeling I get when walking in a quiet trail. Those are hard to rendered in a photographe.

So I try to find a focus, a more pinpoint to a subject, as atmosphere and odeur are subjective. I ask myself, when I show this picture, what will the viewer see? Of course, it may be complitely different than what cought my eye. Tacking different angles, and perspectives may help the process.

[FrankMi]

Hi Jim, as you look around, your eyes will focus on a subject but will also be aware of all that is around it with your peripheral vision. The camera takes it all in with equal value so if you want the camera to 'see' what your eyes focus on, you need to control the appearance of the subject in the image.

For example, in this scene, you may have looked at specific leaves, then the moss, then the bark and so on. Taking any one object that you focused on as your subject would move the images in that direction but it would take a number of images to stitch together what your brain does in a split-second of viewing.

In a way, a video might move closer to what your eye really saw if it weren't for the fact that the camera/camcorder can still only focus on one point with one ‘set’ of settings and it might not be the point you are looking at when you view the image/video.

All of this to say that because the camera is limited to one focus point, exposure, shutter speed, depth of field, etc. at a time and your eye and brain continuously record all that it sees and seamlessly stitches it together as a panorama, you really need to choose a captivating subject to zero in on for your composition, regardless of if it is in woodlands or not. Unfortunately, woodlands are one of the most challengingly busy environments in which to photograph.

If you look at almost any successful image, lines in the image provide you with Direction Elements that take your eye to the Anchor Elements (subjects) where you can explore the details. Often, additional Direction Elements will lead you around the image and back to the subject.

[Dave Humphries]

Add me to the list of people that can't shoot the wood for the trees

(or is it the other way round?)

[bhurley]

Actually I think great forest photos can have no "subject" at all in the traditional sense and can be mostly about patterns and shapes, like an abstract painting. Many of Elliot Porter's "Intimate Landscapes" photos are like that: take a look at some of his photographs here:

http://collections.mocp.org/info.php...orter%2C+Eliot

I think you've come close to a "Porteresque" image here, it's just that the composition doesn't really hang together. When you look at Porter's photos you see that the patterns and shapes have a cohesiveness, the eye travels around and doesn't want to leave the image.

One of the best books I've ever read on photography is "Why Photographs Work," by George Barr. He takes 52 great images and explains in detail why they work. A lot of what he talks about is composition and how it makes the eye move around the photo.