Originally posted by yanfengl
you've got a beautiful eye, one that sees texture, tone, and depth.
You seem to have a pet peave for the depth of field, and a tendency to capture things the way you saw them where you were standing.
First, thanks for taking your time out to comment. It really is a huge chunk of information to absorb before I can "retaliate". Now, it's time to get nasty!!! kekeke...
I thank you for publicy announce my eye is "beautiful".
It took me hours to get over the compliment.
Put that aside, I don't easily expose a single shot until I found the right viewpoint. If time is of concern and place I would never step foot again, I will normally take a couple of shots as a precaution and then select JUST ONE from the lot.
So, my point is... I don't have the tendency to capture things the way I saw them where I was standing.
Originally posted by yanfengl
your composition on the nature shot, with the trees and rapids could have been strengthened if you had shifted yourself to the left of the rapids, and skewed the perspective to enlongate the river. That way it would stretch across the picture and show the space.
I actually negotiated around the rapids, left and right but found the centre - pic 3 showed
more of what I wanted people to see - the pebble rocks.
As you suggested and also what I had in mind then to elongate the river, I moved to the left of the rapids but it didn't quite work as well as we initially thought. As we moved, the perspective of the scene changed: we will see more we want to see but at the same time, we will also see more we don't want to see!
To come to a compromise of what I want and don't want to see, I chose to expose pic 3. See, I don't just take a shot the way I saw them where I was standing.
I understood your expressed intention but sometimes, it is not always what we want to see we will get it all on film.
Originally posted by yanfengl
I agree with what someone said earlier, the 4 picture is abit wierd, the point of focus is the left corners and that forces the eye to search for the subject. If your intention was that, then it has reached your objective, but i feel its a weak picture all together. Eliminating the current focal subject and moving right, you would have gotten yourself a beautiful scene of branches in different directions. depth of field here was critical, but you didnt' have it.
To be honest with you, I did compose a shot without the roots but did not make an exposure of it. I was really intrigued by the fact that a tree this BIG can be uprooted and yet survive in that position for more than 2 years. So, I brought the more than a human height roots into the picture!
Not just that, I thought the uprooted parts help to contrast and break the otherwise monotonous pattern of the branches.
Yes, agree with you guys that my emphasis or point of focus should have been placed on those branches to tie well with my theme - Shapes, Patterns & Textures ... but this was not what I had in mind when I took that shot but again I apologized.
