autumn scene

[DanK]

A first edit--quite jetlagged, so not a careful one. Comments welcome, including editing suggestions.

[Manfred M]

Great autumn colours, Dan. I like the yellows in the foreground and middle ground and the bare trees and oranges in the background, with the green conifers and blue sky. What is not working for me is that large tree on the left. It interrupts the visual flow of the image; it just dominates the image and creates a lot of visual imbalance, in my view.

[Geoff F]

Cropping the left side to remove the main tree trunk, with a similar amount from the top, would help to remove the tree dominance. But do you consider the tree to be your main subject?

[DanK]

Geoff,

Not quite, but you're warm. I'm certainly no art historian, but there is a technique in painting that dates back at least as far as the Dutch masters of the 17th century for achieving balance by placing a large and visually heavy object toward one side, taking up well under half of the canvas, and placing a larger expanse of smaller, visually lighter on the other side. This can take many different forms and can use many different ratios. Here's an example from the 17th century: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-C-211. Here's a much subtler variant in a painting by Pissarro: https://images.fineartamerica.com/im...e-pissarro.jpg

That's what I was aiming for. Because the tree isn't too dense, I let it take up quite a lot of space. But if you put a pivot point below the image, about 1/3 from the left, it would balance.

I've photographed that spot many times, perhaps a dozen on that day alone, trying to figure out how to use the shape of the tree. The area to the right of the tree, which goes on a bit farther before being interrupted by trees on the other side, wouldn't by itself have a central focus.

Dan

[Round Tuit]

I think that what you are trying to achieve could work if the whole tree were in the frame. That would require a wider lens or stepping back quite a bit.

[mugge]

The colours right of the tree are stunning. I wish the tree wasn't there
Cheers Ole

[billtils]

I keep coming back to this ...and the uncertainty about the tree. Each viewing leaves me feeling it is just right as it is. Remove it and it's reduced. to a quite nice but unexceptional autumnal shot, put more in and it's, well, a tree ...

The thing that really works for me (if I see it correctly) is the pile of dead leaves under the tree, so we have nice end of autumn colours and features, but some greenery and all topped off with a nice blue sky.

[royent]

To me, without the tree there's no point of interest
Roy

[LenR]

I am inclined to agree with Bill And Roy. Without the foreground tree the image loses the point of interest.....

[Round Tuit]

Having look at it a few more times, I think that you might want to consider cropping the right side to position the red tree on the edge of the frame. I know that this goes against the "rule" of not having anything break the frame but I think that in this case, it would give the red tree more visual weight. The red tree would also act as a stop to prevent the eyes from drifting out of the frame.

[DanK]

This has been a really interested exchange. thanks to all who posted.

Bill, Roy, and Len: what you are describing was my goal.

Re cropping on the left: I have some shots with the entire tree, but they don't balance because the tree is too large. Unlike some people, I have no hesitation about cropping through something if it makes the image work. That's another thing one can see in paintings by some of the masters. I have a bunch of examples on my phone, but one is Renior's Peonies, https://www.wikiart.org/en/pierre-au...renoir/peonies.

Re cropping on the right: I need to play with that when I get back to my main computer. I think I would crop at the red tree if the it were further to the right. Given where the tree is, I want to see what it would do to balance. I have a hard time visualizing that without doing the actual crop.

Thanks again.

[Manfred M]

Thanks for the examples of the images, as that gives a better idea as to what you are trying to achieve here.

I agree, you need the tree, but probably not as much as you have, because it dominates the scene. The Renoir is composed quite differently from the examples of the Windmill in the Rijksmuseum or the Pissarro. Those two images are landscapes ans attack the composition differently that the still life does.

I wonder if this is more in the direction that you are thinking?

[DanK]

Manfred,

Thanks. I used the Renoir only to illustrate cropping through important compositional elements. It happened to be a still life, but you can see the same in a great many landscapes, including the Pissarro I linked above. A much better example is Monet's Spring in Giverny, https://www.wikiart.org/en/claude-mo...ime-in-giverny.

Re cropping more of the large tree: that's an interesting suggestion, and when I'm back at my main computer--with both that capture and a dozen or so additional ones--I'll play with that. However, the square crop doesn't work for me. I'll have to fiddle.

I think the diversity of opinions in this thread is interesting and in some ways encouraging. Folks have different visions of how to display something like this.

Dan