Cherry Blossoms

[Byron Holston]

Since the Cherry Blossoms around here (Wash DC area) are pretty much dried up and dead. I thought I'd post one of the pics I took while they were in bloom.

Any comments or suggestions??



I was going to use Photoshop and remove the people as well as the branches in front of the monument, but then I thought about that whole 'image manipulation' thread and decided not to....

Byron
http://holston.footbridge.net

[gandini]

Im pretty sure I stood at this spot while in Washington a couple of weeks ago, during the height of the Cherry Blossom festival. There was a guy with a large camera and tripod making a photo, I'd imagine similar to this. It can't have been Byron though, because it was a film camera!
I walked the entire circumference of the lake looking for my "vision" of the blossoms, but it never really happened (My photo of the Jefferson monument in my gallery does contain blossoms, but they are not highlighted.)
Seeing Byron's photo makes me think I should have tried a little harder... it's very beautiful photo!

PS. I probably would have PhotoShopped those branches to oblivion Just kidding...

cheers,

[Byron Holston]

Philip,

Thanks for the comments.

If the guy you saw was black, 6' 3" and ~260lbs then it might have been me. I was shooting with both film and digital cameras that day.

Byron

[Pekka]

Byron, that's a nice photo, don't do anything for it. People are usually good in scenes as they give you sense of scale.

Manipulation is ok if it's needed, but you can go there again and have a better image in your head as you know the spot. What I do, when I know I have an opportunity to visit a location more than once, is that I try to imagine new pictures in my mind, and think angles and ways to do those pics. Be your own director.

One though arises from the composition: how do you know whether the subject of the photo is the monument or the Cherry Blossoms? Making the background very blurred or to reframe entirely so that the monument was not so governing would have perhaps helped to make the flowers the main thing. Now to me it seems that the tower is the subject and the Cherry Blossoms were used as a frame (which goes over the subject a bit). But the cherries are maybe more interesting than the tower so wer have a conflict here. If you have two equal subjects it can reduce the impact of a photo. These thoughts might sound a bit 'academic' but I nevertheless think it's important to know what your aim is - what you try to say with the photo and then try to capture just and only that.

PS. Can we see some more of your works, please!

[Leo R]

Byron that picture stirs some strong emotions for me. The blossoms tell me it's spring when life is renewed once again and hints at what is to come. The people celebrate the arrival of spring as they stroll among the scent of cherry blossoms in the warm spring sunshine, free of the shackles of a harsh winter. The monument, to me, does not detract from the picture but adds a great deal. It stands as a guardian of the freedom the people below are enjoying and of course sets the local.

At first, I objected to the small branches encroaching in front of the monument, but on further reflection I wondered if you had moved a little left to have even more branches in front of the monument, if the message would have been stonger.

Just some thoughts of a lesser gifted .

PS: I visted your home page and enjoyed your digital pages and others. Are the others digital? They gave me the feeling that they were film.

Thanks for sharing, Leo

[Rick]

Byron,

Looks like we may have almost been bumping into each other. I too was shooting the blossoms about then. I like the fact that you decided to leave the image how it was.

A lot of photographers seem to think people distract from images like this. I disagree, the monument and the blossoms are here like this because of people. Its mans interaction with his environment which causes scenes like this, so it makes sense to me that man should be in it

Very nice shot !

I have a few blossom shots myself on a pro90 test area Im doing. Its at www.spincityimaging.com/pro90/ if your interested.

Rick

[Byron Holston]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Pekka - On this picture, my subject was the Cherry Blossoms, but I also wanted to show that it was taken in Washington, DC. I could have gone with a smaller DOF that concentrated on the blossoms, but I wanted to see the monument in focus also.

Once I get around to updating my web page with more pics from the G1, I'll post a link and ask for feedback/criticism. I do have one picture I'll post in a few minutes that I need some help in improving.

Thanks for your comments as well as for all the useful information you've distributed through your page and this forum. It has all been a tremendous help.

Leo - Actually, I did have a couple shots with more of the Cherry Blossoms/branches in front of the monument. I didn't like that picture as much since it seem to break the monument up into more sections and took away from its size and shape.

Also, you are correct, except for the pictures under the section marked digital, everything else is film. I'm hoping to expand the digital section either this week or next when I've got time.

[ATHiker95]

Pekka wrote:

If you have two equal subjects it can reduce the impact of a photo. These thoughts might sound a bit 'academic' but I nevertheless think it's important to know what your aim is - what you try to say with the photo and then try to capture just and only that.

PS. Can we see some more of your works, please!

Pekka,
I understand your comment above, but not sure I always agree. Sometimes both subjects could be the intent of the photographer. I am thinking for instance of the wide angle photography of David Muench. He may have a beautiful wildflower only inches from the lens, yet the peaks of the mountains in the distance are equally in focus. Personally, I prefer that and am usually bothered by the blurred background (unless it is of something that has no merit whatsoever, in which case I would certainly agree with you). In this case, blurring either the monument or the trees would bother me as I think they are both equally important to the picture.

Mark

[ATHiker95]

Pekka wrote:

If you have two equal subjects it can reduce the impact of a photo. These thoughts might sound a bit 'academic' but I nevertheless think it's important to know what your aim is - what you try to say with the photo and then try to capture just and only that.

PS. Can we see some more of your works, please!

Pekka,
I understand your comment above, but not sure I always agree. Sometimes both subjects could be the intent of the photographer. I am thinking for instance of the wide angle photography of David Muench. He may have a beautiful wildflower only inches from the lens, yet the peaks of the mountains in the distance are equally in focus. Personally, I prefer that and am usually bothered by the blurred background (unless it is of something that has no merit whatsoever, in which case I would certainly agree with you). In this case, blurring either the monument or the trees would bother me as I think they are both equally important to the picture.

Mark