Above the tree-tops

I took this shot last weekend, and i'm still trying to decide what I think. I'm trying to get an eye for square format. The original 2x3 shot had a more dramatic sweep from the treetops in the foreground, which enhances the feeling of being above the trees. But part of me thinks the balance of square format is more important.
I may get back up there someday when the light is better and take a shot in med-format instead of the Nikon I used for this.

I intentionally didn't include the original (un-cropped photo), because i'm interested in reactions and opinions from eyes less confounded. I may include the original later if anybody really wants to see it next to this one...

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DGqiPEK-HO2gGzEwOK2GFQ?feat=directlink

Thanks!
-Nick

Nick Masson said:

I took this shot last weekend, and i'm still trying to decide what I think. I'm trying to get an eye for square format. The original 2x3 shot had a more dramatic sweep from the treetops in the foreground, which enhances the feeling of being above the trees. But part of me thinks the balance of square format is more important.
I may get back up there someday when the light is better and take a shot in med-format instead of the Nikon I used for this.

I intentionally didn't include the original (un-cropped photo), because i'm interested in reactions and opinions from eyes less confounded. I may include the original later if anybody really wants to see it next to this one...

​

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/DGqiPEK-HO2gGzEwOK2GFQ?feat=directlink

Thanks!
-Nick

Click to expand...

Nick,

I like the form of the image. I enjoy the limited number of zones and the texture to the dark area the tree provide. However, I'm puzzled by the grain in the sky.

Asher

Hi, Nick,

Nick Masson said:

I took this shot last weekend, and i'm still trying to decide what I think. I'm trying to get an eye for square format. The original 2x3 shot had a more dramatic sweep from the treetops in the foreground, which enhances the feeling of being above the trees. But part of me thinks the balance of square format is more important.

Click to expand...

Balance?

Squareness, perhaps.

Whatever it is, does it have value just from that?

Some pix look very good at 1:1, and some at 1.1:1, and some at 4:3, and some at 3:4, and some at 3:2, and some at 2:3, and some at 16:9.

It can be very handy to shoot at 1:1, but I'm not sure that there is anything magickal about a 1:1 delivery image.

Best regards,

Doug

The square format works very well here. I don't think it would benefit from being uncropped (left to right): there are enough foreground tree expanse to get the feeling you are looking for, and the top landscape is nicely balanced left to right as it is. If the original was in portrait orientation, so that uncropping would add more trees to the bottom, you lose the balance between the bottom and the top.

Thanks for the replies.

The original image was vertically oriented, so there is a loss in the 'swooping' feeling from having tree-tops almost directly underfoot. But, Jerome, I agree it takes away from the mountains in the background.

Doug, I do agree there is nothing special about square format, and each image deserves its own considerations. Images that approach a more equal aspect ratio, however, do (at least for me), typically carry with them a sense of comfort, balance, relaxation, etc... The other extreme (panoramas), are awe-some, but I find that with a square format the eye need not work as much. It moves as much vertically as it does horizontally to cover the image's space. Perhaps I am making something from nothing, but I think this symmetry contributes to the comfort I find in more equal-aspect images -- there are less questions as to how to (physically) approach an image, and as such more quiet in the perceiver's head.

Asher, the negative was slightly over-exposed, and i've found my scanner generates quite a bit of noise in very high and very low density areas, and that's exasperated by contrast control/increase in PS. I would have preferred to be up in good light, but I on top of a meteorological station tower and wouldn't have had that opportunity in the morning when the light was more subtle.
Cheers,
-Nick