|
|
|
Michael Busselle
{K:221} 1/12/2002
|
In view of the interest shown in this image and the various comments I?ve received concerning the composition etc. I thought it might be helpful to give some more details.
The shot was taken at a time when this colourful foliage covered much of the countryside in this area but, during my visit, the light was very soft and the landscape looked quite bland with little to ?hang? a picture on. This small tree was in the middle of the field and from my initial sighting was quite insignificant. But it was my best bet.
I found that by crouching in the ditch beside the road the tree moved almost onto the horizon and became much more important. It was pretty windy and the movement was inevitable so I decided to allow it to occur in a more positive way by using a small aperture and slow shutter speed. I had nothing to lose anyway as the distance between the immediate foreground and the tree was such that the depth of field would never be enough to render both sharply, even using the smallest aperture and assuming air had been still, but I don?t think I would have wanted this anyway.
By the way, I?m a newcomer to this site and would like to know how I can get in touch directly with a couple of people who?ve asked me to, there doesn?t appear to be any individual email addresses.
|
|
|
|
Dave Holland
{K:13074} 1/11/2002
|
Wow, 88 views so far, in the first day this pic is posted. For a landscape image this has to be some kind of a record. That brilliant yellow is eyecatching! As to the wind and motion, a little movement is interesting, but there is a hair too much motion here for my tastes. However I have been often frustrated by wind, and I realize this is not easy to control. The tree is critical. I have a few similar images without the focus of that tree, and they are not at all in the same league as this one. A fine effort.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven B. Poitinger
{K:1757} 1/11/2002
|
Eye-popping photo Michael. I won't get in the middle of shot angle debate, I'll just say that I love the
color and that I too, am attracted to this theme of the lone tree in wide open spaces.
|
|
|
|
Tony Smallman
{K:23858} 1/11/2002
|
Nice Pic. you seem to share my fixation on trees-especially isolated ones.Were you with Dave Waterman when you took this shot,he took me to this reservoir one evening.There's a retrospective exhibition of his work,about 50 photos,in Antequera's photographic club until the end of January and you would ,of course, be very welcome.Do get in contactwith me.
|
|
|
|
|
Deleted User
{K:2231} 1/11/2002
|
ok.. what nan said!
would like to see it both ways, anyway. Have any other frames of this?
|
|
|
|
Bob Jarman
{K:3145} 1/11/2002
|
Michael, Jamie is swooning!!!!!
Great image, I personally like the colors and the softness of the flowers. makes me want for the springtime.
|
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
{K:15790} 1/11/2002
|
What nan does not realize is that it is virtually impossible to do what she is asking. First off the tree position makes it interesting rather the opposite. Secondly to achieve that dof would have required a view camera or an extrememly wide lens either of which would have changed this shot and its perspective so that's pretty much out the window too. If he had squatted down and tilted the camera up as you suggest the tree would be falling backwards (perspective wise) instead of its proper place which is where it is in this photograph. There is plenty of fluidity here that I can see and this shot needs only one thing, and that's a frame. It's time to really start looking at this photograph for what it is, not what you want it to be.
In a critique you must understand you look at what is in the image not what you want to be in the image, or what you want the image to be. You need to sit with your thoughts and understand what the photographer was trying to portray.
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie
{K:530} 1/11/2002
|
Michael -- Have I said how much I love your work yet? *swoon* --Jamie
|
|
0 
