Something different

[Dave Humphries]

That is, something different from what I usually take pictures of ...

DSCF6520-6.jpg

It came from a rather dull RAW and I've done what I can to make it into something worth looking at, but that's where you (dear member) come in ... have I succeeded?

From the same dull afternoon, but (due to background) less scope for improving the vibrance, etc.

DSCF6518-3.jpg

It's the composition on this second one I'd particularly appreciate your views on.


Thanks in advance, Dave

(And thanks to McQ for increasing the attachment limits)

[crisscross]

The 1st one is fine, maybe the saturation just a touch overdone. NB looking at it on Firefox/mac set to full colour range, maybe you have set image to sRGB or enhanced it for being ********up in poor browser environment?

On the 2nd, crop it square, the wall to the left adds nothing.

Generally don't thnk 1/3s rules etc relevent for plant images that just try to show the plant realy well, as you are doing, rather than pushing it over the 'arty' boundary

[Dave Humphries]

The 1st one is fine, maybe the saturation just a touch overdone. NB looking at it on Firefox/mac set to full colour range, maybe you have set image to sRGB or enhanced it for being ********up in poor browser environment?

I'm afraid I haven't developed sufficient skill and consistency for worrying about colour spaces, but you are correct, it is sRGB. I agree it is overdone on the chroma, got carried away with Vibrance and Saturation in the RAW conversion (ACR 4.3.1).

On the 2nd, crop it square, the wall to the left adds nothing.

Generally don't thnk 1/3s rules etc relevent for plant images that just try to show the plant realy well, as you are doing, rather than pushing it over the 'arty' boundary

Right again, I was trying to be a bit arty, the theory was that the strong fence rail diagonal took the viewers eyes out of shot to left, but cropped as is; they 'hit' the bush/tree and are deflected to the right, back along the horizon and down the river again to the main subject. Plus, as you surmise, the rule of 1/3s crept in too.

When I compare back to the RAW, I noticed the finished jpg actually has less colour in the 'bloom' than the original - You see what I mean about a lack of consistency.

I'm learning all the time though - so thanks for the feedback, Dave

[shreds]

Right again, I was trying to be a bit arty, the theory was that the strong fence rail diagonal took the viewers eyes out of shot to left, but cropped as is; they 'hit' the bush/tree and are deflected to the right, back along the horizon and down the river again to the main subject. Plus, as you surmise, the rule of 1/3s crept in too.

Dave,

I am not sure that it works quite like that... certainly my eyes didn't follow it in that way.

Generally diagonals transmit action, whilst I would have thought that this shot was very tranquil, albeit contrasting with the sharp splines of the teasel (it is a teasel isn't it?). As such I feel the diagonal wall distracts and takes the eye away from the subject. Equally, I find the single strand spider's web across the picture a distraction in this case too. (although such features can often enhance a picture in other circumstances.)

I would have gone for a much closer crop on the teasel itself. I would agree that rules of composition are somewhat different for these subjects and therefore the rule of thirds really can be broken in this case.

My th'pence for what its (not) worth!