It's been interesting thinking about the range of opinions about
leaving that little bit at the top in my abstract photo of the marsh
reeds this week.
The photo was a big hit with my friends on Facebook and nearly all of
them felt that the band of trees at the top gave the image a
necessary context.
Perhaps many of them are not as photographically informed as those
who have commented here? Evaluating a photograph, for me, includes
mental reference to treatments of similar material which I've seen
during the last 40 years of watching landscape photography and, for
absolutely certain, most of my Facebook friends have not got anything
like the background in the repertoire that I carry in my head.
They're not photographically illiterate, by a long shot. But they
simply mostly haven't spent so many years actually looking at
photographs thoughtfully.
Of course, leaving that part in the image was deliberate on my part.
And considering not including it was part of the moment when I took
it. Putting it at the bottom was part of it too, and rejected as
being too predictable, too much the conventional solution. But
mostly, I wanted to give a small touch of perspective to the scene
and I felt leaving the little strip of trees at the top did that.
Keep the comments coming!
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
Check out my Spring daily photograph project at:
http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6
And Summer:
http://tinyurl.com/3a6m7g6
