Ok in my personal view......... I would lose a chunk of the foreground
in favour of the big sky. I feel as if my eye is having to negotiate an
obstacle to get to my point of interest which is the ribbon of the
settlement / town buildings etc. The big sky is a defining part of the
image of the place whereas the planting prominence is as a result of
deliberate camera angle. A narrower band of fields would still imply
that it was part of a larger rolling landscape and give that context to
the place but for me the foreground is in my peripheral vision of the
main object of interest i.e. the buildings group.
Dave
On 25/05/2015 10:54, Philippe wrote:
TIA for letting me know which of these crops works better, if either does, and
why if you have time to explain.
FYI, my doubts come from a different perception when seen small or large, so
thanks for your precious feedback.
SWH 2
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Doulce+France/Somewhereheim--2.jpg.html
SWH 3
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/Doulce+France/Somewhereheim--3.jpg.html
Amities
Philippe, sorry for duplicates.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
| 
