I found this scene to be quite beautiful for sure, but when I look at it from the photographer's view point, I find that that person just went there, saw the scene, clicked the photo and returned home.
It doesn't seem to me that he has made this scene special. To me it sounds as if the scene was there and he just bothered to use the camera.
Same is the case with this photograph I took. Beautiful flowers, but what have I done there to make it "special"?
Question: How to make a nature photograph rather than take it?
And, no, when the nature is already beautiful, I won't want to spoil it by throwing a human or a newspaper or a toy in it.
Here are the kind of pics where I would say that the person has "made" them not simply "taken" them: Green dead body, by Alonso Díaz , and Hyacinths & Tree, by Lars van de Goor.
Answer
I terms of composition, based on your examples, you seem to be trying to identify that pictures such as these are better with foreground elements and a 'beginning' 'middle' and 'end' portion.
Take the first example, it's clearly a scene with much effort put into the shot. Its a lovely scene but the composition is ultimately little more than foggy trees. Now take the third and similar shot, its again, foggy trees but this time we have a composed shot with a clear piece of foreground interest (bright green tree), a middle in the few stumps, and the fog creates the ethereal background.
The 2nd, of your flowers, is closer to a portrait than a 'nature' photo. Its a single subject photograph really. The last picture of the field of flowers highlights the composition with the flowers in the foreground, the tree in the middle, and the sky in the 'background'. Its this composition that 'makes' the photo in your mind.
Having a start, middle, and end, or at the very least a foreground element, helps provide interesting and leads the eye around the photograph. To me, these are the fundamental differences here.
No comments:
Post a Comment