Simple picture, simple question

[Surprised]

Hello, and thank you for popping by!

It was a gorgeous day in northwest England yesterday, so we took our two boys out into the countryside by train, visited a local bird sanctuary and inevitably the camera came out a few times along the way.

I quite like this one, which gives a good idea of the countryside and the weather; what it lacks in inspiration it makes up for in simplicity... Any comments about the composition would be appreciated (is it just too boring?), as would any answers to a simple question: portrait or landscape?

Thanks in advance.



EXIF data
Camera: Panasonic DMC-FZ28
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 6.6 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Taken at 3:35pm GMT

[Cheeze439]

I'm no expert by any means and I do like this photo, but personally I would possibly of cropped it a little more at the top and the left. This way the main tree would hit bang on where two of the lines from 'the rule of thirds' meet. I've done a quick crop on it show you what I mean. I think it looks more balanced this way. Only my opinion of course

As a former graphic designer shots like this were great for posters etc, the big empty space is perfect for typesetting in.

All in all though, I think it's a nice shot, some people don't like a lot of empty space in a photo but done right it can really look appealing.

[MovingStill]

Beautiful image. More often than not going for such simplicity makes for a stronger image and this is a perfect example.

I'm going to go the other way to Cheeze439 suggestion though: I think about a 1/3rd of the grass should be cropped of the bottom. By keeping the trees a little off the rule-of-thirds proportions it creates a bit of tension in the image which engages the viewer more. There is still a balance though between the 'weight' of the greens relative to the blues and a thirds proportion then comes in at the height of the cloudline just above the trees..

If an image is too harmonious then often no effort required of the viewer and their attention doesn't linger on the image. Sometimes a balance has to be found in subtler elements of an image.

[ctcook]

I like all the empty space in this piece the simplicity of it is very engaging. As to your simple question, I think that Portrait orientation suits it best. The only item I'd like to point out is that the horizon does not seem level. The right side seems lower, but that could be due to the unbalanced image (but that's what gives this piece it's character). Love it, good job.

[Surprised]

Thank you for your comments and encouragement!

Cheeze439: I'd never thought of this from a graphic design point of view but I can see exactly what you mean now. Occasionally I have to do some presentations in the course of my work and following on from your suggestion I could well use this image as the background to a powerpoint slide or two. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to show how a different crop would look!

MovingStill: Thanks for your thoughts -- I always find it interesting when people give different opinions on this site! I will play with both crops and see which I prefer. I suppose it would partly depend on whether the picture is to be used incidentally as a power-point background or whether it's a picture in its own right, so to speak...

ctcook: I think I prefer portrait too (although ironically it might be easier to crop it to landscape if I'm to use it in a power-point). I hadn't noticed the horizon isn't quite straight and I tend to be a stickler for these sort of things! I'll go away and see if I can correct it.

Thank you again!

[Kate71]

Surprised,
I'm a big fan of big sky... I really like your picture. Portrait setting is a good way to show all this space, especially when the rest is so simple

[Surprised]

Hi Kate71

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm a big fan of big sky too -- I used to live in a really flat part of the UK and loved the huge amount of sky that was always on view. Nowadays I live in a hillier area and whilst the hills are beautiful I do miss the sky!

(I'm a big fan of Sydney too even though it's nearly 25 years since I was last there.)

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[augursal]

my two cents:
this is a very minimalist and strong image. i would probably crop out the second tree on the right. it is hurting the minimalism and is too close to the edge which introduces unnecessary tension.

[douglas]

Originally Posted by augursal

my two cents:
this is a very minimalist and strong image. i would probably crop out the second tree on the right. it is hurting the minimalism and is too close to the edge which introduces unnecessary tension.

Agree, I think this will be better...just my 2 pennies worth!

[Surprised]

Thank you, augursal and douglas, for your 2 cents/pennies (either are gratefully accepted this side of the pond!). I hadn't considered whether one tree or two trees would be better but I agree with your reasoning, augursal, and I'm grateful for the cropped result, douglas. Do either of you have a perspective on the best ratio of green to blue, since cheeze349 and MovingStill disagreed about this up-thread?

Thanks to everyone for their comments on this one -- I've learnt a lot!