Hi all!
I would love to know your thoughts on this image.
Please don’t be shy or reserve. I appreciate and respect critical feedback.
ISO 100, f/5.6, 100mm, 2 frames, focus stacked
Full Image
1x1 Crop
4x5 Crop
Tom
First, the tree is a great subject. The simplicity of the surrounding elements helps emphasize its importance in the image. General feeling about the comps is small image - small impact; largest image - most impact.
Tom: My favorite is the 4x5 and the least favorite the original. The 4x5 puts the emphasis on the tree with the FG a nice supporting element and just the right amount of empty sky. On the original there’s too much sky and FG for my tastes but both crops work well. >=))>
Hi Tom,
I agree with Bill in that the 4x5 version is my favorite as it brings focus to the tree. The original has too much FG. The 1x1 format works, but I still prefer the 4x5. I wish that there wasn’t a pine (?) tree behind the tree as it takes attention away from the main subject (i.e. may eye goes there first and then I start looking at the rest of the tree).
Another vote for the 4 x 5. Really like the background fog versus the clarity of the large tree. The golden grasses are perfect to make this an interesting image.
Patricia,
Thank you for the feedback. I think you mean that the larger tree creates a larger and more impactful image. Is that correct?
Tom
Another vote for the 4x5 version. My eye goes right to that tree with so much character. The grass didn’t need as much attention as shown in the original crop. It’s just a foundation for the primary subject to rest upon so you don’t need much, just enough, and to my eye, you’ve struck a good balance in the 4x5 crop. Really nice, @Tom_Herriman!
@Bill_Fach
You make a great point!
@Jacob_Buchowski
I agree. I wish that little growth wasn’t there! Don’t they know it’s messing up a great image? 
@David_Schoen ,
Agreed.
@Colleen_Miniuk
Thank you for that compliment!
Thank you all for your feedback!
Yes, correct.
Tom,
Another vote for door #3; although I might give back a little more space at the bottom - which brings it closer to #2, which is also viable. My reasoning is a bit different than the others. It’s the growth at the bottom of the tree that creates the composition decision. To me, in the original view, the clump of growth at the bottom is more of a distraction, bringing the question, what is it? Quite normally we see a full tree. but in the closer views of #2/#3 that growth (either from the same tree, or a different plant) is embraced more; more acceptable, if that makes sense.
The second thing is that due to the drab, gray conditions, the image needs to be about the tree and not so much about all the gray fog/clouds.
No doubt a great subject to return to in different seasons and conditions.
Lon
