One more surprise for me. On my profile I added a new photo. This time it is a small dam and right beneath the dam is a smal bridge. So I went down into this little river because I thought the bridge would be a nice natural frame for this smal man made waterfall.
Then I got a comment that what I really framed with the bridge was not the waterfall, but the hillside in the background. And I can not disagree. I don't think this makes the photo a bummer. I still like my own photo, but it shows its not always I manage to show in the final result what my thoughts was when i made the composition and in post processing.
What du you think.
It depends on the eye
I see it as well.. There is clear thought to frame the water and falls but with the grass having more color and being a bit brighter, makes it the focus (or "landing spot" for the eyes). I like it; it's a unique photo and well done. I'd love to see this during a golden hour situation but I know that might not be possible.
Kjeli, I think it is a good photo or I wouldn't have commented. The point I was trying to make is that the composition is such that you could make two photos that would stand on their own. Each photo would be interesting.
Thank you. I didn't think you misliked the photo, on the contrary. The interesting part is that you correctly pointed out that it actually was the background that was in the frame and not the waterfall. I didn't realize that before you commented it, and it shows how easy it is to loose eyesight on its own work. This makes comments from other photographers valuable.
Thanks again for showing interest.
I just wish that I had taken the photo.lol
I see several framings in this image, Kjell, the waterfall framed as you say, the dam framed by the bridge, and the hillside framed by both.
This is a fundamental part of the appeal of the image for me, as well as the rather grand, brutalist framing for a simple, bucolic pastoral landscape, which at first looks meagre ("You're framing THAT?") before its own gentle beauty reveals itself.
Thus, this simple image can be "read" at several levels, like many images of enduring appeal. I think this multiple layering is not necessarily even consciously evident to the photographer at the time, but something we do unconsciously as we frame up until it just "looks right".
Speaking of which, I'd make the top of the dam parallel to the bridge i.e. all those lines horizontal. I suspect the structures are parallel but that you weren't perfectly positioned to show that. Often it's impossible to site a tripod in an exact position. And it's very hard to get this all PERFECT at the time of shooting, so I'd use perspective correction in post. I'd do it here even if the structures weren't parallel, as the slight angulation of the dam detracts slightly from the image.
I sometimes use what I think is called Warp in PS (Liquify in my ACDSee) to do this too, sometimes simpler for a minor tweak than perspective correction tools, and the cropping they can introduce.
Thanks for taking time to such a long comment.
The structure of the dam and bridge are actually not parallel. In post processing i did actually considering making these two lines parallel, but ended up not doing that even that would be an easy correction. I do think I like this imperfections in those line not being parallel. I’m not sure its the right decision, so perhaps I try to straighten the lines.
On this scene I did not use tripod. I could not get the framing I wanted using tripod, so this photo i taken handheld balancing on a small rock in the river and on a big rock on the riverside.