CT: Long ago, I took the NYIP course, and one of the things that they really emphasized early on was “
subject.” According to their dogma, every compelling image must have a subject. I think that is a pretty good approach in most instances. What is it that we are trying to show our audience? What is it about the scene that draws us?
Once we have identified that, the challenge then becomes how do we – photographically – make our subject stand out to the viewer in an effective way. That is where the various “tools” available to the photographer come in. There are numerous ways to do it. The most obvious (and usually least effective and least dynamic) is to put the subject in the “bulls-eye” center of the image. Sometimes that is very effective (e.g., in portraiture – be it human or animal). But most of the time, it yields a very boring and static composition. Other ways include making the subject very large in the frame in comparison to other elements, placing colors and contrast in such a way that the subject stands out, or by using a technique called "selective focus." Selective focus means (usually) that the subject is in sharp focus and other elements of the image (often the background) is out of focus --
purposely.
Sometimes in an image, we have different possible “subjects” competing for attention. That gives the photo a vaguely unsettled feeling for me. In this case, it is hard to tell whether the fence or the trees are supposed to be the subject. The other “elements” of the image should then be complimentary – but not overpowering. They are often used to give the image perspective and balance. Here, (both images), the trees in the top center really detract, in my view from the overall image.
To Al’s point: IF the subject is the fence, I would try to do something to make sure the viewer knows that. But I would go even further. Is the subject the fence
line, or an extreme closeup of the fence, showing its texture. Is it the line or is it maybe just one of the criss/crosses? I like the diagonal in the image and I think it gives it some dynamics. To me it is that zig-zagging fence line that draws my interest. So, I would borrow a page from Dean and try to make the “distance” fade and show the fence as my subject. Something like this:
This was a "quick and dirty" edit. I think you could spend some time using layers and some of PS's tools to do a pretty nice job of this -- I did it in about 5 minutes to illustrate my point and it is pretty crude. But notice how the approximately to 25% of the image blurs? That is the idea that I
think Dean was expressing in his "fade to black" comment. Since the fence is going "nowhere" fade the distance to keep the viewer's eye on the subject, but the
suggestion that it goes on into the distance is still there.
More importantly, I have made the fence take up most of the frame, making it clear (I think) that the fence is indeed the subject. Again, I think that is along the line of what Al is getting at.
Don't get me wrong, CT: I am not saying this is a "better" interpretation of the scene you saw. I am only saying it is one in which the subject may be more clear. It may well be that the "subject" of the image is the "nice scene" overall. In that case, I think the photographer has to think about all the elements and issues raised, including placement of the elements, and what they depict to the viewer.
Every time I do this, I learn something myself -- so thanks for being willing to put these up for critique (for those who are not familiar with the foliage forum, CT is
the leading enthusiast here and her continued presence and contribution is invaluable as far as I am concerned). Thanks, CT.
. If the foreground trees and fence sections are in focus and they gradually are less so as you move through the picture, I think that would be possibly helpful given that you cannot have a nice ending point to the diagonal.