Hi Mark, I suppose you can see what you want to see in the image. It's intent was almost anti-photo, to work with elements that went against what is typically considered "good" photography, or, perhaps, more traditional ways of exploring a scene and making a statement. That I used the word dream in the subject, that the photo shows a lack of symmetry, or balance (by your definition), overly saturated colors, a fair amount of purple fringing and purple in the shadows, bright sky, and the like, were all done that way intentionally, used that way to make a statement that has nothing to do with nature or landscape.
My comment about balance being a "bourgeois concept" was tongue in cheek, paraphrasing a tag line seen here with ever growing frequency, but also to state that the lack of balance, as you see it, gives a different kind of balance to the image, which, for better or worse, you don't see. Regardless, knowing the intent of the photo, what was wanted to achieve, it wasn't expected that many, if any, would get it. That one or two did makes the photo successful, IMO. Of course, I'm quite used to mostpeople (in the ee cummings sense) not caring for the photos I make or prefer, and, as I said once or twice before, if too many people like a given photo (depending on the photo and its intent), then it's considered a failure. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Mark Cassino > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Balance is a bourgeois concept <LOL>. > > No - it's a compositional element that either enhances the visual effect or > detracts from it. Like sharpness. > > > Landscapes and nature photography (flowers, trees, birds, waterfalls, > > etc.) > > have no need to be interpreted. They are more or less representational, > > reflecting what the photographer has seen. > > I don't see your shot as a nature shot, but I see lots of room for > interpretation in landscapes and nature shots in general. The best ones > speak in a more refined language of visual cues and composition, and > subtlety is lost on some viewers, but it's there. Others are, as you note, > purely representational. The same can be said of on-nature shots as well. > > > I never saw this as a landscape > > or nature photography. > > I do see your image as a landscape, but not as a nature shot per se. The > central visual element is the mist and light and the really nice composition > of the trail.. Like I said - it's very painterly, which I mean as a > compliment. I do think there are some weak aspects to the composition that > hold it back a bit, but I still like the shot. Or digital creation - > whichever it is. > > Just my 2 cents.
