These are two more images from my trip to the pond. They're both of the same pair of trees, but I framed them differently in order to try different compositions. Both of them were intended to include the reflections as major elements of the image. I am curious as to how these pictures are received in comparison to one another. I personally find the first more appealing and closer to my original vision for the images, but do like some aspects of the second. As stated in the title, I'm specifically seeking out your reflections on the pictures. What do you feel when you look at each one?
As far as technical info goes, both images were shot at 75mm with ISO 100 and an aperture of f/25. The exposure time was 1/6 of a second.
Hi Matthew! I'm torn whether to comment at all. ICM just never really grabs me, but I think I understand why others find it appealing. There's some arbitrary line somewhere for me; when it's crossed, the image fails to appeal as a photo, although something very similar might seem fine in a painting. I tend to think that if you want to depart that far from "straight" photography, use another medium. And I can see the nonsense in my argument!
These images are very dynamic for me. The central pale areas in these images are like an explosion for me, which could be cool in itself, but far from the necessarily placid nature of reflections. The two images' "explosions" are different in character, the second being more explosive, so to speak. The bright green adds to the dynamism.
To my eye, the forms are better balanced in the second, the first feeling a bit left-heavy. I find the pale trunks (?) and their reflections completely transecting the image to be a slightly jarring note, especially as they are the brightest areas in the images. Unless you're a purist (could there be such a thing with this kind of image?) I'd partially clone them out or change the brightness to reduce the contrast. I might even radically change the colour, treating the images as pure abstracts rather than a pleasant green lake scene (with explosions!). I can just see myself dropping my picnic sandwiches in shock!
Thank you very much for your comment, Chris. As always, you've delved right into the matter with your signature blend of photographic philosophy and insight. I've always enjoyed reading your comments for those very reasons.
I am by no means a purist when it comes to these things, but I am cautious in post-processing. I like to go through several versions of each image, gathering input from others as I keep working.
I am quite grateful for your input, which, along with Alan's, has guided another version of the first image. I have posted that one after the original edit of the first. If/when I come up with another go at the other one, I'll add it to the end.
Thanks for your kind words, Matthew.
You are among the most open and creative members here, with your own unique take on things, which is always interesting to hear about, even when it's not "my thing", especially as you explain a bit about the thinking behind what you do.
The composition in your rework is stronger for me, more because of the increased tonal contrasts (which constitute one aspect of composition) than the rearrangement. In other respects my comments about the first two still hold true for this one.
Thanks for posting Matthew.
For the most part I'd have to agree with Chris (shocker....). My own feeling on ICM is that it works best when complementing the form of the subject, and perhaps keeping a level of recognition that the eye can latch onto (while at the same time creating a level of mystery).
Otherwise ICM images need to be completely abstract, with the composition built from a foundation of color and form.
I think these images fall into the latter category, but the composition (as Chris points out) falls a bit short.
I can see and appreciate your attempt at creating balance in each, but I find the lighter tree trunks pull the eye away from the image (leading out lines???). Perhaps some rework on these (or even a gradient from top/bottom reducing highlights/white or even exposure) might covert these to lead-in lines.
I'd love to know what you feel when you spend time looking at these as this type of work is so subjective.
I do like what you've said here about the general categories of ICM. I can't say that I've ever heard it put that way, although I instinctively agree with you on those two groupings.
You and Christ both pointed out two major issues with the version of the image that I had. Neither had really seemed too important to me in my first go, but I did make a change to the composition, as well as a slight straightening. I did reduce the brightness of the trunks as well, which hopefully draws less attention to them.
When looking at these, I am struck by the painterly quality about them, particularly the first scene. The symmetry is something that appeals to me in both. Looking at them in my case reminds me more of the beauty of the scene in which this was originally created. I suppose it ironically gives me a peaceful feeling at contrast with the visual style and what Chris deemed "explosions".
If you agree with me, I'd better change my mind, Alan!
Let's face it Chris, I only ever disagree with you when you are wrong :-)