Is this toooo minimalist?

[Donald]

The good bit about it is that your thinking is in the right place. It sounds as if you have a very clear vision of what it is you want to create. That's the important starting point.

Somewhere, sometime you'll see the scene that you know is that vision come real. And then you can go for it. Patience is the key virtue with that approach.

[tb72]

Hi Wendy,

Your initial idea in this picture is interesting. The problem is that as we say into french "eyes doesn't know where to watch". in the green part of your picture, there are no lines managing the reading of your pictures. For the sky, shapes of clouds is too smooth

[Wirefox]

Very like yours with added cloudy goodness.

The third element I was prattling on about. For me abstract works best if you do not know or care what the base image comprises. Abstract art should always prompt the viewers own imagination to do somersaults. Sky and grass cannot be abstract in this formal composition because the obviousness of what I am looking at prevents my mind from entering free flight. Abstract can be obvious but its presentation has to be so off the wall it no longer matters what the original thoughts of the artist were. Now the man from the Guardian will disagree because they love to be really clever and divine what the artists mood, thoughts and purpose were. They could probably tell you what he had for dinner. But thats all about the need to be in control...abstract needs to be out of control.

[Vandenberg]

only thing thats missing is Tinky Winky Dipsy La-La and Po

[Wirefox]

No Dave and Colin commented earlier in the thread. We are just missing La La and Po

[Donald]

only thing thats missing is Tinky Winky Dipsy La-La and Po

No Dave and Colin commented earlier in the thread. We are just missing La La and Po

That exchange is going to have to be explained to most of the rest of world.

If people really feel the need to understand, try here (but you have been warned!)

[wilgk]

[Peter Ryan]

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

So what you are looking for is colour and shape, a flat two dimensional image, if I read it correctly. Firstly I think the grass needs to be sharp. I cannot focus on the foreground so go looking for something sharp. The horizon line is not crisp so I keep wondering. Sharpness would help me anyway.

Secondly you have a rectangular frame with two rectangles in it. Maybe if you tilted the camera to create a diagonal line within the frame you might create more interest. You could try this at different angles and different placement.