Oops, I was not referring to details in the sense of "things" or "objects" that belong or don't belong there, Shyamal, but about details in the photographic sence. A tree can belong exactly as well dead in the water - why not? This is a matter of composition. If it is OK then even dirty socks on water can be great.
The problem is how to get for example the finest elements of the tree's texture (details) without necessarily relying in maximum contrast, which sometimes may raise the power of exactness but lower the power of the atmosphere. This is a main photographical headache.
But main headaches are always good for good ideas about how to get rid of them. ;-)
ah, Nick ... perhaps the idea is exactly the lack of validity in the details, the lack of strong definition of everything's place; surely a tree does not belong dead in the water, but that is a detail that adds to the atmosphere.
Good perspective of the endlessness, Shyamal! The mirroring water surely plays the role of the plane of reference here, and it underlines the leading lines. But exactly these leading lines could gain more power by less centering of that fallen tree in water, which seems to be the mediator between here and infinity with its reflection on the water.
The details are good but they are also "supressed" by the lower contrast. I tried to adjust leveles for a higher contrast and then... the details were more poerful but the general atmosphere was lost (attachment). A hard work, really, for I still ask myself, how to give the details more validity without lowering the validity of the atmosphere due to lighting balance? Somebody any ideas?
0 
{K:127263} 12/15/2008
