Zig Zag on the Carse of Gowrie

[Donald]

Saving the planet is certainly going to be a challenge.

Your C & C welcomed, particularly given that it breaks most of the 'rule of thirds'.


40D, 70-200 f4 L IS @ 116mm. ISO 100. 1/40 @ f8. Manual. 06:43am.

[carregwen]

Donald

I feel it's too split between left/right. The two pylons are the main attention-grabbers, but they are each on the extreme of the shot, so my eyes try to settle in the centre, but there isn't much there. I do a lot of pylon shots and I try to make a single pylon the main feature. It's a bit of a bold move as most people think they are ugly brutes of things. The detail is good in the shot, and it looks very sharp. You didn't fancy cloning the wire out then? Would have kept you busy into old age...

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Donald,

I can see what you were trying to achieve, but I don't think it has quite come off.

For me, the lower voltage power line on the wooden pole should be eradicated completely; the pole and especially the wires entering left edge of frame are too much.

However, even without those, I fear the main picture will still have too many crisscrossing wires for one to follow the line into and around the picture. It wouldn't be so bad if the SHV lines went from the right hand to central pylon, but they obviously go off to right, then re-enter and probably via another hidden pylon in valley, come back up to that central one < 'that's life' sympathetic smilie >

As Rob says, it is nice and sharp and needs to be viewed full screen (f11) to be appreciated fully.

Hope that helps,

[Donald]

Thanks guys. This was a case of, to paraphrase Steve (Wirefox) yesterday, I was trying to force something out of the image that wasn't there. As I was shooting and processing, I knew it wasn't working and should have dumped it there and then. But I liked the concept and started to convince myself that it wasn't so 'off-beam' as I knew it really was. An interesting lesson for me and others that should be read in conjunction with Steve's post #19 in this thread.

[ScoutR]

Saving the planet is certainly going to be a challenge.

Your C & C welcomed, particularly given that it breaks most of the 'rule of thirds'.

Hi Donald: I'm late on this one, trying to figure out how to say what I want to say. First of all I like this shot. I liked it as soon as I looked at it. I like the subject matter and I like how you have processed it. I also like the composition.

The hard part is expressing why I like it, when there has been so much feedback to the contrary. This to me is more of a reality shot than an artistic shot. It's not totally journalistic though, the feel of it is artistic, but reality has not been put into any compositional or artistic rules that are meant to make it more pleasing to the eye. On the other hand it has not been hardened so much as to make it ugly. It's just a very subtle and realistic shot. More like what most people see when they are driving in the country.

I don't know if that made any sense so I will try and example:

I've seen shots of hydro fixtures and pylons that have been made to look very pleasant, sometimes blending in with the scenery and sometimes enhanced by sunsets or great lighting, or composition that turn them into works of art. I like these shot very much, but in reality these are not usually thought of as things of beauty.

I guess it boils down to what you want to convey. The artistic shots can teach us to look at otherwise unattractive or ordinary things in a different way, and possibly accept them as things of beauty or works of art.

Reality shots on the other hand are more of a protest or a wish that things were not the way they are. I suppose rules apply for reality shots too, but in my mind I would not want a shot like this to be completely ordered and balanced.

In this shot there is enough art there to make me wish the power lines were not there, but it's not so artsy that the power lines enhance the scene.

You did another shot awhile ago with a communications tower on a hill. To me that shot was opposite of this one. In that shot the communications tower fit into the scene and the whole shot looked excellent. I could imagine it without the tower, but the photograph did not make me wish the tower was not there or that it was wrecking the scenery. I believe that was due to the way it was composed. The tower fit, and to me it actually looked quite beautiful the way it was lit. If you had composed differently, you could have made me want to get rid of towers, and ban them from the country side, but your shot showed me that the towers could be beautiful and blend in.

So, I'm now beyond babbling, but this is very hard to explain. I will quit now and just say that I like the shot, and don't think it should be perfectly composed to get the point across, unless you want me to grow fond of and accept power lines and pylons as a beautiful part of our modern scenery.

Wendy

[Donald]

Thank you, Wendy.

I don't think you were 'babbling'. What you were doing was expressing an emotional reaction to an image (which happened to be one of mine) ... and that is brilliant. And it connects directly with the thread over the last couple of days or so, about critically analysing an image.

Irrespective of whether your view, in the final analysis, is more relevant than that of Rob or Dave, the most important thing is that you have formed an opinion and are able to explain why you have done so. I'm afraid that takes me back into 'touchy/feely' mode, but that is the most beautiful part of it. It takes you into a different place so far as your own development is concerned. It's no longer just about - 'It's nice' or 'It's not nice'.

And responding on this emotional level is wonderful. Sure, continue to develop so that you can formulate technical criticism as well. But please, please never lose that ability and indeed skill, to respond on an emotional level. That's what really makes the world tick!