Are flowers a distraction?

Thoughts on this? Looking at different styles here, curious of thoughts on flowers as a distraction? Some people will totally disagree with the editing styles/colors, and I realize that's not for everyone. Just trying something "new" for me....

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …L/0U6A3869-L.jpg&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …L/0U6A3866-L.jpg&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …L/0U6A3861-L.jpg&lb=1&s=A

To me, yes they are. I much prefer the third photo. I like the editing style though.

My eyes were first drawn to the kids in the car, so the flowers were not immediately distracting; however, I think if they were slightly more in focus (but not completely) and if you'd crop the image to place the car less centered and eliminate much of the bare driveway it would make a better shot.

swbkrun wrote in post #18693254
Thoughts on this? Looking at different styles here, curious of thoughts on flowers as a distraction?

It seems odd to me that you only questioned whether the flowers were a distraction. The electrical service, mailbox, garage doors, excess pavement, etc. are OK, but you find the flowers distracting?

I like the 3rd image better too, but maybe because you allow them to dominate the image more than in the first image.
I think I'd crop the first image to a portrait orientation to eliminate many of the items that I found distracting and listed above.

bob_r wrote in post #18693501
It seems odd to me that you only questioned whether the flowers were a distraction. The electrical service, mailbox, garage doors, excess pavement, etc. are OK, but you find the flowers distracting?

These other elements mentioned do not have the same visual weight as the foreground flowers and do not appear as intentionally placed objects within the frame, therefore are not typically considered as visual distractions.

swbkrun wrote in post #18693254
Thoughts on this? Looking at different styles here, curious of thoughts on flowers as a distraction? Some people will totally disagree with the editing styles/colors, and I realize that's not for everyone. Just trying something "new" for me....

The foreground flowers, are a consciously placed element by the photographer and has a direct influence on how a viewer looks at the image. This type of composition is generally used to create the feeling of surveillance or hidden observation. Because of the subject matter it can be perceived as a bit "creepy". Had there been more cover from the bush it would definitely be creepy.

i would say yes, along with other items in the background. I like the third one

were these intended as "art" or just the best possible captures of your kids in your neighborhood doing their thing? Makes a big difference. If you are trying to do the later, good job. They are nice representations of a real life subject.

The best thing about the third is the interaction between the two. And I would crop it much tighter to keep that focus as paramount. You have a dark area encroaching into the grass area that is really competing with the kids because it is at the same level/band in the shot On the other hand I think the other two tell a lot more about your kids..and all that other stuff is great context. Net net I am pretty much disagreeing with the other posters here. I am really bored of shots that are so over simplified that they tell you not much of anything.

The foreground flowers are a distraction, yes, and they seem so irrelevant to the rest of the scene that I have no idea why they were included. There must have been other spots from which to get a low shooting angle without giving the appearance of hiding behind the vegetation.

I think a much tighter crop of the first shot with the car on the right would make a nicer shot, reduce clutter and place more emphasis on the children. The flowers aren't perfectly placed, but are not terrible. If the were a little lower right it might work i out better.

The third has no sense of place and does nothing to me. It could be any street in the world.

-Duck- wrote in post #18693532
These other elements mentioned do not have the same visual weight as the foreground flowers and do not appear as intentionally placed objects within the frame, therefore are not typically considered as visual distractions.

I agree that background distractions do not have the same visual impact as foreground distractions, but they are still considered distractions.

bob_r wrote in post #18693501
It seems odd to me that you only questioned whether the flowers were a distraction. The electrical service, mailbox, garage doors, excess pavement, etc. are OK, but you find the flowers distracting?

I like the 3rd image better too, but maybe because you allow them to dominate the image more than in the first image.
I think I'd crop the first image to a portrait orientation to eliminate many of the items that I found distracting and listed above.

The mailbox, service box, garage, are part of almost every home in our neighborhood. It don’t really find those are a distraction as they are not out of the norm here. But thanks for opening my eyes to them.

Again, as I mentioned I was looking at different styles here. Just trying to learn as much as I can. Sorry if it seems odd to you I only ask about the flowers.

Thanks all... I appreciate all the feedback. I’m constantly trying to learn... look at different styles, and HAVE fun.

IMAGE LINK: https://averymckenna.s​mugmug.com …2018/i-L9TCMb5/A&lb=1&s=A

Avery and Blake 2018

If you want really cute images of kids, stop shooting down at them. Get the camera really low. It's what makes the difference between a snap shot - and thats what these are - and a true portrait style photo of the kids. Low, wide open, watch your backgrounds. Try to not have the camera higher then their heads. Makes a big difference. If your camera has a floppy screen, flip it out and hold the camera low.

swbkrun wrote in post #18693788
The mailbox, service box, garage, are part of almost every home in our neighborhood. It don’t really find those are a distraction as they are not out of the norm here.

The fact that they exist in your neighborhood doesn't change the fact that they are distractions. If something in your image distracts your viewer's attention from your subject without adding a positive element to the image, it's a distraction. The flowers and the items I mentioned are all distractions. It's up to the photographer to try to eliminate the distractions. You could change your point of view by moving or changing your focal length to eliminate some of these distractions. You could also decrease your DOF to minimize them or perhaps you could have used a flash for your subjects and allowed your background to go darker. There are many options when trying to clean up a background.

There are times when allowing elements in the image to give a sense of place, a sense of scale, to visually balance an image or to give an image the illusion of depth that make those elements acceptable and desired even though they may have little to do with the subject. I don't find that to be the case with the flowers or the things I named.

I should be the one apologizing if I gave you more of a critique than you wanted, but since the question was about composition, I thought the entire composition should be considered rather than just the flowers.

To me, yes they are. you just need to lower them a bit.