Hola from el-critique-o clubbo.
hmm. what do we have here??? and intersting scene, a beautiful location, a story, action. why didn't it work??
shapes and lines, man. well, and thirds too.
There's a static feeling in the composition because of the strict use of striped thirds here. Having all of the birds in the center of the rectangle, in a sub-rectangular form gives the connotation of the flight being boxed in. I kind of get this sense that they want to fly off into the sunset, but they can't. I think that subliminal shape sets this feeling into action.
More shapes. The triangle is always a strong compositional form, but it's prominence is hidden by the flight of the birds, and lessened by the birds intersecting the sides of the shape. The placement of the triangle as a powerful object (and rock, more power) also adds to the permanence of the center of the composition.
The foreground was mostly unnecessary, I think. Removing it and cropping the ground (I disagree with Jeremy) allows for the mind to be drawn into the skies and think more freely, and of the freedom of flight. This also removes the distracting (I think) detail in the sand, which further cements the birds flight to the ground. Zooming in further to exclude the ridge line on the left would help even further, leave the only ground elements with less visual weight, and the triangles of the rocks pointing into the open skies.
If-only ending thought: wouldn't it have been great to have the sun setting/rising just between the two rocks, and have all the birds silhouetted?
-Steve |
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
