Furrowed Fields - The 5th image and thoughts on the set

[Donald]

This thread follows on from this one, in which we discussed my series of images of fields.

A couple of points about this, before you start viewing the images below.

1. I very much took on board the advice offered about the running order of the first 3 in the set.
2. I realise that the series needs to be re-named 'Farmed Fields' instead of 'Furrowed Fields', because I came across other very patterned fields that have been prepared for sowing, but are not in furrows.
3. The 5th image in my set is included here, along with 4 already posted. However, in thinking about what I feel is right order in which to view the set, the 5th image is 4th in the running order below.
4. Thinking about sets of images (i.e. a project, no matter how large or small) and how you present it to the viewer, is something that features a lot in the BA (Honours) in Photography degree course which I am studying. This is a very different discipline than just thinking about single images and brings, for me, a new and exciting dimension to my photography.

So, with that said................

All thoughts, comments and critiques are appreciated.

Study 1




Study 2




Study 3





Study 4





Study 5

[Shadowman]

I was viewing a lesson on composition and the lecturer detailed many of the examples you've shown here (rule of thirds, leading lines, patterns, and tone) and the most important rule he claimed was sometimes ignoring the rules and finding your own vision. We on this forum often make suggestions based on our own assumptions, visions, and lessons learned, yet we often forget that it is the often an attempt by the photographer to display their own visions. Nice series, #4 has the most energy, the others remind me of the farmer's energy in completing.

[TonyW]

When you think that black and white images are about lines, shapes and textures, all these images demonstrate those qualities.

Here, it is that last two images that keep my attention and make me want to keep looking. I think it is because as well as the lines created by the furrows, there is a superimposed pattern from the curvature of the lines which give the interest.

[bnnrcn]

If the images were mine, I would make two sets and present them seperately. The first three images would make the first set, the 4th and the 5th images would make the other set.

Apart from this point, they are all very nice images. If the 4th image was mine I would create another image with a similar way of thinking to the 5th one, by cropping out the sky and the trees

[rtbaum]

#4 speaks to me the most and, in my mind, is the best composition

[Kaye Leggett]

Apologies, I'm very late to this thread and the others that precede it. But today is a catching up day....I'm all by myself and really really enjoying browsing the photography here, processing some of my own photos, being uninterupted - precious days.

These images are lovely and I can't help noticing that you have stuck with the square format throughout. Presumably very deliberately ? Did you experiment with other formats or where they always going to be square ?

[Mike Buckley]

Though I like the fourth image a lot (actually, all of them a lot), I still don't get the feeling that the set works as a set as well as the individual photos work by themselves. I like Binnur's idea about breaking them into two sets. Even so, my guess is that as you have more time to make more photos of this theme, you'll eventually arrive at a different combination of photos that make the set itself stronger.

[Donald]

These images are lovely and I can't help noticing that you have stuck with the square format throughout. Presumably very deliberately ? Did you experiment with other formats or where they always going to be square?

Thank you, Kaye.

As you know from seeing other stuff I've put on here, working with a square format is by far and away my favourite, although I also use 7 x 5 and 16 x 9, and 4 x 5 for portrait oriented images. So when I capture the image, I do so having composed it for one of the specific ratios.

Having decided that these images would work best as 1:1 (square) images, then the set had to be in that format. I don't believe you can/should start mixing ratios when you're trying to present a series of images as a set.

[Donald]

Even so, my guess is that as you have more time to make more photos of this theme, you'll eventually arrive at a different combination of photos that make the set itself stronger.

Exactly. This is about work-in-progress, not the finished article.

[Round Tuit]

Hi Donald,

Let me start by saying that I am one of those people that don't "get" art. I don't care much for the works of Gaugin, Renoir, Van Gogh, the Group of Seven, Emily Carr, Picasso... You get the point. On the other hand, I do enjoy some of the paintings by Memling, Salvator Dali, Robert Bateman, Alex Colville and a few other who tend to paint more "life like" images. I would therefore like to offer what may be a different perspective on your set of images from someone who is not nor aspire to become artistic.

When I looked at #1, #2, #3 my reaction was "nice picture". When I reached #4 I went "wow" and back to "nice picture" on #5. I suspect that I like #4 because it is reminescent of your earlier landscapes that inspired me when I first joined this forum. I do feel that #4 disrupts the set and agree with Binnur that removing the sky and the trees would make it fit better but would also make it loose much of its appeal to me.

If these were my images, I would have place #4 at the end of the set because it is significantly different and it provides a climactic ending to the series. You deliberately place it in the penultimate position and I wonder if you would share your reasons for doing so.


If I have offended any artist, I offer my sincere apologies.

andre

[Wavelength]

A superb set of images.... liked all of them; i liked #5 the best, followed by #4

[Donald]

If these were my images, I would have place #4 at the end of the set because it is significantly different and it provides a climactic ending to the series. You deliberately place it in the penultimate position and I wonder if you would share your reasons for doing so.

That is a really interesting viewpoint. I debated which way round #4 and #5 should be. The deciding factor for me was not the fact of straight furrows versus curved furrows, but that the 'style' of the furrow in #5 was markedly different than from the others (they were all shot in the same field). That's waht made me put it at #5. When I put it at #4, there seemed to much of a jump from #3 to #4 and then back from #4 to #5 in terms of the 'type' of furrow.

[Mike Buckley]

the 'style' of the furrow in #5 was markedly different than from the others

For me, the style of the furrow doesn't matter; it's the shapes of the lines as if the images were purely abstract that matters. If your audience was made up of people who are reasonably informed about farming methods, the style of the furrow might matter. Otherwise, I don't think so.

[tbob]

I would preserve the high contrast style of processing for #5 for consistency.

I know you like the square format, and this goes more to artistic interpretation so I am a little hesitant to voice it as I am sure you consider these things, but I have a problem with the featureless white sky in the first two and the trees in number four. Ditching the sky and trees, thus making the series a strict study of the furrow patterns would probably change your intent.

[Donald]

... so I am a little hesitant to voice it ...

Please do not be. Yes, I do consider these things, but you offer a very valid critique, for which I thank you. Constructive comments like this are stored in the grey matter somewhere and, hopefully, do influence thinking in the future.