| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2007 12:40:11 PM · #1 |
I had originally intended my free study shot to include three trees that I pass quite often. There is a very small 4th tree that I have cloned out. After I got there and I was trying different compositions, I decided to enter the 2 tree version.
I do notice that my whites and contrast are slightly different and the 3 tree version is a quick edit, but I'm looking mainly at composition...So which is better, 2 or 3?
original entry 
3 tree version  |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:43:04 PM · #2 |
I love the 2 pic - I think it's just so simple and the post processing is great. For me it's the 2
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:43:07 PM · #3 |
| I vote the two trees a million times over the three trees. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:44:26 PM · #4 |
| I think you were right to go with the two trees, well done on your red |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:44:56 PM · #5 |
| Personally I prefer the 2 tree image. It has a good balance. The spacing of the trees on the triple image isnt even and kind of sets it off weird IMO. Not that it isnt a cool shot as well, I just think that the 2 tree shot is stronger. Just my lowly opinion. Congrats again on that high score and ribbon. Really well done. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:45:13 PM · #6 |
Typically, from a Feng Shui or true Zen balance, it should be an odd number. A single tree or 3 trees would have the balance, but the one you submitted looks darn good as it is.
Just ignore me - I'm clueless.
;)
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:48:36 PM · #7 |
Hard to argue with a Red Ribbon winner, and the two-tree version has a nice symmetry to it. That said, odd numbers are generally recommended for visual balance (as Brad noted).
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 12:51:44 PM · #8 |
Classically, one should avoid even number of subjects in a composition, especially if they are of equal size, and especially two. The reasoning is that the two equally sized objects would fight for the right to be an accent in a shot.
Honestly, I don't like either of the two pictures: I think that they are missing a point of attention, something to make them interesting; the trees and the reflections are just a good backdrop for another picture, IMO. Even the old trick of throwing a stone into the water to create some concentric circles would improve them. On top of that, the two-tree version is hopelessly over-processed, especially in the reflections part.
Message edited by author 2007-02-08 12:52:51.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:27:38 PM · #9 |
There's something about the square of two by two. It's much more compelling to me.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:30:29 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Classically, one should avoid even number of subjects in a composition, especially if they are of equal size, and especially two. The reasoning is that the two equally sized objects would fight for the right to be an accent in a shot.
Honestly, I don't like either of the two pictures: I think that they are missing a point of attention, something to make them interesting; the trees and the reflections are just a good backdrop for another picture, IMO. Even the old trick of throwing a stone into the water to create some concentric circles would improve them. On top of that, the two-tree version is hopelessly over-processed, especially in the reflections part. |
big suprise |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:31:58 PM · #11 |
In the case of this image, the two by two seems a much more complete and pleasing image. The 2x2 has planes of symmetry both in the horizontal and perpendicular direction. Using a square crop just sealed the deal. GREAT photo!
Message edited by author 2007-02-08 13:38:35. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:34:08 PM · #12 |
| I too like the two. The symmetry is quite compelling, and you've used just the right amount of space around the trees/reflections, IMO. Overprocessed? No, IMO. Highly processed? Yes. I personally love what you did with it. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:37:24 PM · #13 |
Normally i'd say three for a nice balance, but in this case your two tree'd shot looks better. I think it's because the third tree isn't as symetrical as the other two.
Great shot by the way, well deserved ribbon.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:38:40 PM · #14 |
I would have said the three trees because of the 'odd number rule' but as  timfythetoorightly says, the spacing is not even and kind of throws the balance off a bit so I think the two trees you went with was the best choice. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 01:52:55 PM · #15 |
Yours was one of the pictures I rated highest in the challenge - and there is no doubt in my mind that you made the right choice with tour "2 tree" choice.
I know about the "odd number rule", but sometimes rules are meant to be broken, and this is one of those times. Your 2 tree composition makes the picture stand out from the crowd. If you had gone with the 3 tree version you wouldn't have achieved this - at least not IMO. I know I would have have rated your lower with 3 trees. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 02:21:31 PM · #16 |
The 2-tree version is a good example of breaking the rules for a reason, even if you didn't know what it was; it "felt right" so you did it.
Here's what you did: You created a squarish image and divided it into four quadrants. Each quadrant has its own tree. No two trees are identical, but they are tantalizingly close. Even the reflections are not the "same" as the trees they are reflecting. So there is a strong, neutral, implied central point tot he image, and the 4 variations are dancing around that point very effectively. You could not have accomplished this tension/repose counterpoise with the 6-tree version.
And remember this, also: the rule says "make off numbers of objects", and this is usually the case, but it is not possible to have an odd number when you are doing reflections. You are not really dealing with a 2/3 option; it's a 4/6 option, and you chose the right one.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 02:31:42 PM · #17 |
| Just one would have worked too. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:32:54 PM · #18 |
As usual Robert has analyized this perfectly. The symmetry is the point here - and it is quite startling - a nice exception to the "usual" rules. I have no doubt you made the right choice.
Jack
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The 2-tree version is a good example of breaking the rules for a reason, even if you didn't know what it was; it "felt right" so you did it.
Here's what you did: You created a squarish image and divided it into four quadrants. Each quadrant has its own tree. No two trees are identical, but they are tantalizingly close. Even the reflections are not the "same" as the trees they are reflecting. So there is a strong, neutral, implied central point tot he image, and the 4 variations are dancing around that point very effectively. You could not have accomplished this tension/repose counterpoise with the 6-tree version.
And remember this, also: the rule says "make off numbers of objects", and this is usually the case, but it is not possible to have an odd number when you are doing reflections. You are not really dealing with a 2/3 option; it's a 4/6 option, and you chose the right one.
R. |
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:42:03 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by alexjack:
As usual Robert has analyized this perfectly. The symmetry is the point here - and it is quite startling - a nice exception to the "usual" rules. |
But you get the very same symmetry with the three-tree version. :)
I love symmetry in photographs, but I think that it works best if broken by some detail, which creates a semantic contrast, and becomes the point of interest in the composition.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:46:03 PM · #20 |
When planting you should always work with 3,5,7 or 9. Having worked as a gardener for quite a few years, the symmetry of two isn't quite complete, I liked the shot but would have preferred three trees.
I know there will be many who disagree, but it is my job and odds work. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:49:48 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by alexjack:
As usual Robert has analyized this perfectly. The symmetry is the point here - and it is quite startling - a nice exception to the "usual" rules. |
But you get the very same symmetry with the three-tree version. :)
I love symmetry in photographs, but I think that it works best if broken by some detail, which creates a semantic contrast, and becomes the point of interest in the composition. |
Not exactly true, the 2x2 with a square crop gives symmetry both with objects and dimension, the 3x2 doesn't.
Jack |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:51:02 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
When planting you should always work with 3,5,7 or 9. Having worked as a gardener for quite a few years, the symmetry of two isn't quite complete, I liked the shot but would have preferred three trees.
I know there will be many who disagree, but it is my job and odds work. |
Always a pragmatist in the crowd.
:-)
Jack |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:53:41 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
When planting you should always work with 3,5,7 or 9. Having worked as a gardener for quite a few years, the symmetry of two isn't quite complete, I liked the shot but would have preferred three trees.
I know there will be many who disagree, but it is my job and odds work. |
I generally agree, but I think this particular picture is the exception that proves that general rule.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:54:08 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by alexjack:
Originally posted by formerlee:
When planting you should always work with 3,5,7 or 9. Having worked as a gardener for quite a few years, the symmetry of two isn't quite complete, I liked the shot but would have preferred three trees.
I know there will be many who disagree, but it is my job and odds work. |
Always a pragmatist in the crowd.
:-)
Jack |
Yes, there is :) I will admit, even though I have just made a comment about 2's and 3's, I did give this a 9! So, I am true to my word about odds :) The 2 tree shot is a great photo and I accept that the 3 shot looked slightly out of balance, but I do prefer it. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 04:54:39 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
but it is not possible to have an odd number when you are doing reflections.
R. |
or if you do, expect no end of trouble
Message edited by author 2007-02-08 16:55:04.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:51:40 PM EDT.
