Is this toooo minimalist?

[ScoutR]

Nikon D3000: 18-200mm: 1/1000s: f8: ISO 800: 200mm

Wendy

[Dave Humphries]

Well, it might make a good 'clear your mind for thinking' desktop background for a computer

Trouble is, as there is nothing in the middle, my eyes latch on to the o.o.f. stuff on bottom edge towards RHS - not sure that's what you want, is it?

[Donald]

Wendy

I have a notion that something like this also needs a very definite, powerful, horizon line - either one that is absolutely horizontal, or one that is at a very definite, strong, angle. This one is neither - it sort of slopes a bit to the left and, at the left hand edge, slopes down a bit more. So it's not 'punchy'.

[Shadowman]

At the very least it's a good image for such a high ISO. The one thing that could give it more impact would be more dynamic clouds, but then that would make most of the foreground unnecessary.

[Colin Southern]

Yes

[mastamak]

No!
Grant

[ScoutR]

Well, it might make a good 'clear your mind for thinking' desktop background for a computer

Trouble is, as there is nothing in the middle, my eyes latch on to the o.o.f. stuff on bottom edge towards RHS - not sure that's what you want, is it?

Dave, we are always on the same page. The o.o.f. stuff bottom right was bothering me, but I figured it would go all smudgy and repetitive it I tried cloning. I'm not so sure I'll like the shot in a couple days so I didn't put too much work into it.

From Donald: I have a notion that something like this also needs a very definite, powerful, horizon line - either one that is absolutely horizontal, or one that is at a very definite, strong, angle. This one is neither - it sort of slopes a bit to the left and, at the left hand edge, slopes down a bit more. So it's not 'punchy'.

Thanks Donald. I think you are right. It needs something. It's one of those scenes that I just had to stop at when driving by. The contrast between the sky and the field caught my eye, but it's not really translating in the photo. Like you say no Punch.

From John (Shadowman)The one thing that could give it more impact would be more dynamic clouds, but then that would make most of the foreground unnecessary.

Thanks John: I'm with you. In reality the sky was actually greyer. I'm not sure why the colour seems a bit blue here. I did try to darken it but then it started to fall apart. The light was changing quite a bit too, so perhaps it I had waited a bit, I might have found a better result.

From Colin:Yes

Thanks!

From Grant (Mastamak)No!

Thanks!

Thanks again everyone for the feedback and votes. I did like this scene as I saw it, but tend to agree that it needs a little something to make it more dramatic in the photo. I wanted a wider angle to show the expanse of the field, but then of course everything was too far away and I would have had too much to crop. I must learn how to do those stitched panorama shots.

Back to the drawing board on this one.
Wendy

[Wirefox]

Wendy, I see what you are trying to do here but it need one more ingredient. 2 components of minimal interest rarely produces a good composition. I did this with sea and beach and was not impressed with the end product. But if you add a third component the difference is considerable. In this case the third component needs to be a object of contrasting primary colour...a red ballon in the near distance over the green grass for example (or WireVixen in a nuns outfit). This would give the image punch and a focal point.

I always hold that if I feel I have to ask the question "Is this too" I am probably looking at a no-starter. But its good to ask the question anyway to confirm your suspicion.

Steve

[arith]

I think it looks great; what is it?

[ScoutR]

Wendy, I see what you are trying to do here but it need one more ingredient. 2 components of minimal interest rarely produces a good composition. I did this with sea and beach and was not impressed with the end product. But if you add a third component the difference is considerable. In this case the third component needs to be a object of contrasting primary colour...a red ballon in the near distance over the green grass for example (or WireVixen in a nuns outfit). This would give the image punch and a focal point.

I always hold that if I feel I have to ask the question "Is this too" I am probably looking at a no-starter. But its good to ask the question anyway to confirm your suspicion.

Steve

Thanks Steve, very helpful as always - and another good lesson for me. Obviously, some of those "crazy" shots of yours that look so simple but have so much impact are not just happy accidents, but the result of some well thought out planning.

Thanks again, I see exactly what you mean and I believe the feedback from you and others will be very helpful in the future.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

I think it looks great; what is it?

Thanks Steve: It's a flock of Canada Geese that went South for the winter. In this area many of them stick around for the winter,but these guys followed their instincts and migrated

Wendy

[wilgk]

Thanks Steve: It's a flock of Canada Geese that went South for the winter. In this area many of them stick around for the winter,but these guys followed their instincts and migrated

Wendy

...I hope they didn't come down here 5 degrees celsius this morning & it's meant to be Spring!
Your reply here reminds me of 1 of my favourite movies..."fried Green tomatoes"...there is a story in there about a lake getting 'picked up' and moved to Georgia

Sorry I digress again - but the Boys have already given you all the expert help, so I'm just chatting

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Wendy,

Personally I think it is and tend to agree with the comments above. I was away on the weekend and took this shot of a wheat field. I was looking at shots like yours but could not find a definite focal point for the shot. In this I had one horizon and used the trees in the middle then left and then right to add depth to the shot. The sky also helped.

[arith]

Thanks Steve: It's a flock of Canada Geese that went South for the winter. In this area many of them stick around for the winter,but these guys followed their instincts and migrated

Wendy

Ahh I just been looking at the competitions and your photo's didn't show up, nor the red cross to indicate something is wrong. Now I've changed to compatibility view and I can see a field where before there was nothing.

Yes it is too little, not too minimalist since if there was interesting light of shadows or clouds it would be ok. Minimalist to me is the work of the graphic artist, not photography but art. Different ball game altogether. Not really

[David]

Wendy - Don't listen to the naysayers! - Nothing in art can be toooo minimalist. Here's one I took earlier, as they say on Blue Peter - a childrens' programme on BBC TV.



Very like yours with added cloudy goodness.

Cheers

David

[ScoutR]

Ahh I just been looking at the competitions and your photo's didn't show up, nor the red cross to indicate something is wrong. Now I've changed to compatibility view and I can see a field where before there was nothing.

Yes it is too little, not too minimalist since if there was interesting light of shadows or clouds it would be ok. Minimalist to me is the work of the graphic artist, not photography but art. Different ball game altogether. Not really

Steve: If you do a Ctr plus F5 that should show them. I have the same problem here. Sometimes with other's images but usually with mine. I do not know why. Some of my shots are hosted here at the forum and some at my ISP. It happens regardless of where they are hosted. I find if I am logged in and do Ctr F5 or Ctr refresh they show up.

Looking at David's shot below, I agree with what you've said about the clouds. That would help. I think I need to get some art books this winter so I can define all these different styles. I kind of like making up my own though, and those are definitely beyond definition.

Thanks for letting me know the images are still not showing. I can't do anything about it, but at least I know the problem is not just here.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

Wendy - Don't listen to the naysayers! - Nothing in art can be toooo minimalist. Here's one I took earlier, as they say on Blue Peter - a childrens' programme on BBC TV.

Very like yours with added cloudy goodness.

Cheers

David

Thanks David: The clouds do give it a bit more interest. It's the type of shot I think that depends on one's mood, most are I guess, but this kind of thing more than most. Some days I like it and some days not. I'll still keep shooting what catches my eye at the moment though and then decide later.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

Hi Wendy,

Personally I think it is and tend to agree with the comments above. I was away on the weekend and took this shot of a wheat field. I was looking at shots like yours but could not find a definite focal point for the shot. In this I had one horizon and used the trees in the middle then left and then right to add depth to the shot. The sky also helped.

Thanks Peter: I like this shot, and don't get me wrong, but to my mind this is a shot of trees, with the clouds coming in second. If I were to try this same shot in the "style" of my original, I would perhaps try with a lone tree on the horizon, OR in this case because of the cloud patterns this woud even work with just clouds and wheat field. There are really so many options, and I thank you for the feedback, but I think in this case we have something different in mind.

It's very interesting, what you said about depth. I'm thinking that the lack of depth might be the key to what I am trying for. A simple shot that has impact based soley on the colours and compostion. I don't know if I am explaining that very well, I'm not even sure what I mean myself. Suffice it to say, that normally, I would do what you did, and try to get some trees (or something else) in the shot - a focal point. In this case I purposely left everything else out, and that is what I would like to continue trying for, but better.

Anyway, I'm confusing myself now so I will quit talking and perhaps might get the shot in the future that will explain what I am trying to say

Thanks again
Wendy

[Donald]

I'm thinking that the lack of depth might be the key to what I am trying for. A simple shot that has impact based soley on the colours and compostion.

Wendy
This might be getting the wrong end of the stick and setting you off on a completely irrelevant course of thought (in which case - don't).

What you seem to be describing here is abstraction. If that is the case (and you may disagree) then I wonder if it's possible to produce a photo-realistic image of nature that still meets the criteria you're setting, that is a good photograph.

I'm thinking about Steve's (Wirefox) and Rob's architectural images. eNo also did some really striking architectural B & Ws. Is this more suited to what you're trying to achieve than being out about in the countryside (now that's an invitation to get people disagreeing if there ever was one). Can fields and skys etc ever provide what you're after? I'm not sure.

[ScoutR]

No problem Donald, there is no irrelevant course of thought. I understand what you are saying, but somehow I would rather do it with nature than buildings. Actually, I've tried with buildings, and i absolutely can't get the angles right.

You may be right that fields and skies may not be the best subject for what am looking for, but I see it when I'm out there, and one day I might get it it to translate into a photo.

I really should get to the library and get some art books. I think they will be as helpful as photography books in many instances, especially when trying to put thoughts to words.

Thanks again, and don't worry about getting me off on a tangent. I do that all on my own. Still experimenting.

Wendy