Branches

[The_Pearl_Poet]

Comments and critiques are appreciated.

 

[WilliamDSLR]

Great pictures. It appears to be quite an old tree.

Did you use your camera to achieve the black and white capture or did you edit it in some software?

 

[The_Pearl_Poet]

Thanks for the response. I originally took the picture in color, but I knew that I was going to convert it to black and white when I took it. To do the conversion, I used the Black and White adjustment tool in Photoshop.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think this is cluttered with no real composition or strong point of interest.

My eye is drawn to the white spot in the background that shines through and there is nothing compelling in the branches to keep me looking at them.

 

[cgipson1]

I agree with Lew.. there is no real subject. The only thing that really draws the eye is the bright area with no branches, and that is not what you wanted people to look at. Usually the only shots I see like this that are truly interesting are the ones that show the character the tree, or branches. The weathering, cracks, roughness, bug damage, etc... and even then only when there is a contrasting background to set it off.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I agree with Lew and Charlie (got your name from your sig, don't know if that's your real name). This image has no creative pretense at all. It looks like you just walked out and snapped a photo of a random tree, for no reason.

The age of that tree shows that it could possibly tell a good story in a photo, but you would have to find another creative way to use it as a subject.

 

[cgipson1]

I wasn't going to say anything, but I agree with Lew and Charlie (got your name from your sig, don't know if that's your real name).

Yep... I is Charlie!

 

[The_Pearl_Poet]

Everyone, thanks for the responses. My intention for this photograph was for there to be no clear subject. For me, it is about the complexity of the system of branches and their lines. It sounds like the white area is distracting, so I will try to see if I can tone it down some.

 

[The_Traveler]

My intention for this photograph was for there to be no clear subject. For me, it is about the complexity of the system of branches and their lines. It sounds like the white area is distracting, so I will try to see if I can tone it down some.

Don't take our lack of enjoyment as a sign that the image has succeeded.
When someone looks at an image, they try to understand what is important and why the photographer chose to capture it.
That's not apparent here, there isn't a pattern, it is just a jumble and what you see in the image is not being communicated.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Everyone, thanks for the responses. My intention for this photograph was for there to be no clear subject. For me, it is about the complexity of the system of branches and their lines. It sounds like the white area is distracting, so I will try to see if I can tone it down some.

I think you are confusing photographic art with traditional art. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but you just said that in a way that you needed some technical knowledge of the "complexity" of this shot before taking it. Although the lines on the tree may be, the photograph is not. Don't take this criticism negatively. Learn from it and apply it in the future. I don't know where this tree was located, but having a subject at the base of the tree, the tree in the entire frame, and it's landscaping surroundings would have completely changed the demeanor of this photograph in it's entirety.

In traditional art, this would be amazing. However, it would ONLY be amazing because of the complexity in understanding the gradient scale required to get those tones and results from paint and pigments. However, you did not paint this; you simply went outside and snapped a picture of the internal branches in an odd looking tree.

Don't take our lack of enjoyment as a sign that the image has succeeded.
When someone looks at an image, they try to understand what is important and why the photographer chose to capture it.
That's not apparent here, there isn't a pattern, it is just a jumble and what you see in the image is not being communicated.

I could not have said it better myself.

 

[The_Pearl_Poet]

Everyone, thanks for the responses. My intention for this photograph was for there to be no clear subject. For me, it is about the complexity of the system of branches and their lines. It sounds like the white area is distracting, so I will try to see if I can tone it down some.

I think you are confusing photographic art with traditional art. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but you just said that in a way that you needed some technical knowledge of the "complexity" of this shot before taking it. Although the lines on the tree may be, the photograph is not. Don't take this criticism negatively. Learn from it and apply it in the future. I don't know where this tree was located, but having a subject at the base of the tree, the tree in the entire frame, and it's landscaping surroundings would have completely changed the demeanor of this photograph in it's entirety.

In traditional art, this would be amazing. However, it would ONLY be amazing because of the complexity in understanding the gradient scale required to get those tones and results from paint and pigments. However, you did not paint this; you simply went outside and snapped a picture of the internal branches in an odd looking tree.

Don't take our lack of enjoyment as a sign that the image has succeeded.
When someone looks at an image, they try to understand what is important and why the photographer chose to capture it.
That's not apparent here, there isn't a pattern, it is just a jumble and what you see in the image is not being communicated.

I could not have said it better myself.

Thanks, I'll keep these things in mind.