Tuscan Sunflowers

[Jory Griesman]

Taken in Tuscany last month. D700, with 24-70 mm f/2.8 lens at 70 mm, f/16, 1/640 sec, with exp. comp of -1.
Please also see the next image (repost) for purposes of "artistic license" issues/discussion.

[Jory Griesman]

OK. Here's the same image, but without the background tree in the upper left. I thought the tree added some balance and interest. Only one problem - it was copied and pasted into this image from another image. Personally, I don't like this concept, but was curious about what others thought.

[Dave Mills]

Hi Jory, Saw alot of sunflowers in Provence this summer. I also noticed their not the easiest thing to make strong comps out of. I basically cropped different areas out to come up with a balanced comp. I also moved the tree farther over to the left. This exercise is just to give you another way of looking at it.

[Rene Quenneville]

I like Dave's repost. I also think that the tree would be a stronger comp element if it were pulled down a little on this side of the hill. Since ther is not much out of the sky, another idea would be to remove it (the sky)completely.

[Jory Griesman]

Thanks, Rene. Please see my second post, above, without the tree, and my blurb beneath it.

[Rich Ikerd]

Jory, I'm not one to add things to an image so I would go with Rene's suggestion about cropping out the sky entirely and just concentrate of the sunflowers.

[Kyle Marie Barcelos]

WOW i have never seen so many sunflowers, Beautiful. I like the first pic you posted, I like all the green in the front, because of so much yellow it help balance it out IMO. I like the tree also it gives you something else to look at. Great job :)

[Jay Gould]

Jory, when I looked at your image and I immediately thought of the recent Colorado Wildflower image posted by Roger Clark. The reason: your DOF, while you used f/16 (what are the limits of your lense?), is too shallow for this type of image in my opinion. To pull this off I think you need much more sharpness into the BG. Where was your point of focus? I like the concept, and I especially like the FG and the tall flowers.

I also like Rene's suggestion of no sky!

Thanks for sharing.

[Jory Griesman]

Thanks, Jay. My point of focus was about 1/3 into the field, trying to guestimate a hyperfocal distance (as my wife sat in a precariously parked car). I could have gone up to f/22.

Jory

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Jory,
I'm not a huge fan of adding....but it this case IMO the tree does add to the overall scene. I like Dave's re-post...but may go with even more off the LH side for balance. Conversly.....add a bit more sky back and make the tree larger.....since you are adding it anyway. This is one of those images that is very difficult to pull off......shapes will play a huge role....and w/o the sky....not sure you have enough definition in the sunflowers to pull it off.

[Julie Kenward]

I'm going to let everyone else hash out the tree in/tree out question and ask this: why that particular angle on the front row of sunflowers? I have a feeling if you had been able to get just a bit lower those front rows would have carried you all the way to the horizon. As is, I feel like I need to step down to really see them...does that make sense?

[Jory Griesman]

I'm not sure if this helps, Julie, but I was standing on a highway, across the street from this field, with the foreground flowers about 8'-10' off the ground. That is, I was shooting up, with the distant flowers only visible because of a gradual rise in the grade of the field.

[Dave Mills]

Jory, I had a similar problem. In some of these fields the sunflowers are huge. A foot or two over my head. In order to shoot these the way I wanted I had to hope I could elevate myself somewhat. Sometimes it wasn't possible.

[James Shadle]

Jory,
I like the original(first) post. Next time you do the unthinkable and clone in a tree, clone in a taller tree!:)
The tree is a great anchor and made the image more interesting.
James

[Jory Griesman]

Thanks, Jim. So, I've made my imaginary tree larger, and added saturation and contrast to it, and moved it over a touch to the left. Please, however, nobody zoom in on this area.

[Jay Gould]

Bigger tree definitely better! Now IMO you need to level the horizon.

[Mike Tracy]

Bigger tree definitely better! Now IMO you need to level the horizon.

I think in this image what might in fact be the natural slope of the landscape should be included as is with out straightening. I like how the various rows lead your eye from right to left and then the slanted horizon to the tree. Also, I feel if a compositions main subject comprises mostly vertical elements wether they are trees,buildings, or simple sunflowers attention should be made to retain that perspective and let the horizon fall where it may.

[Jay Gould]

Hi Mike, you raise an interesting point. I downloaded the last RP and when you put a grid on it, it appears to me that leveling the horizon results in more of the sunflowers being straight up and down than they currently appear. Mine is just one of many thoughts on presentation.

[Mike Tracy]

Hi Mike, you raise an interesting point. I downloaded the last RP and when you put a grid on it, it appears to me that leveling the horizon results in more of the sunflowers being straight up and down than they currently appear. Mine is just one of many thoughts on presentation.

Jay, I might have been in the sun too long this week. I can't figure out what RP denotes and it wasn't in BPN's acronym repository.

Mine is just one of many thoughts also. There are no stead fast rules in my book, otherwise we can't expand our artistic creativity and separate ourselves from those that strictly adhere to the norm.

[Jory Griesman]

I think RP must stand for repost, Mike. I also agree that "nature should take its course"-including, literally, the course of its contours, such as the rolling hills, and even sunflowers that don't know how to stand up straight.

Jory