I liked them both. But the one with the shoes makes it a bit more appealing. The shoes were the first thing I noticed. The flowers look great though. Smiles...
What happened is that I wanted to get a picture of the purple clematis. Took the picture and realized that the grubby shoes were included, removed the shoes and shot again.
Then, when looking through my pictures, deciding what to post, I realized I liked both -- but wasn't quite sure why the one with appealed to me.
I think R.Burnett's comment answers the question. And, as Brian said, the human touch.
Having never studied photography, my approach is just to take lots of pictures and see how I respond to them when I see them on the computer screen. Sometimes one grabs me and I say "Oh, yes!"
Even if there were no shoes in either picture, I would still pick the first one because I like the landscape view better than the portrait view. Am I the only one who actually had to look for the shoes after reading that there was a pair in the photo??
21 comments:
Absolutely WITH. My parents spent three decades lovingly walking their place and making is bloom. It's a labor of love.
The shoes represent the effort, the labor, the love, and the kicking off and sitting back to watch it all grow.
Rick
Definitely with.
kinda depends on what you are going for...but i think they add a human touch and also change the story completely...
I liked them both. But the one with the shoes makes it a bit more appealing. The shoes were the first thing I noticed. The flowers look great though.
Smiles...
Both.
Elora :-))
What happened is that I wanted to get a picture of the purple clematis. Took the picture and realized that the grubby shoes were included, removed the shoes and shot again.
Then, when looking through my pictures, deciding what to post, I realized I liked both -- but wasn't quite sure why the one with appealed to me.
I think R.Burnett's comment answers the question. And, as Brian said, the human touch.
Having never studied photography, my approach is just to take lots of pictures and see how I respond to them when I see them on the computer screen. Sometimes one grabs me and I say "Oh, yes!"
Even if there were no shoes in either picture, I would still pick the first one because I like the landscape view better than the portrait view. Am I the only one who actually had to look for the shoes after reading that there was a pair in the photo??
Better with because it inspires a story. The other is just really pretty.
With...too.
Lynne in GA
No question. With. It gives the composition life and personality.
Both!!.And in the order you present them. After seeing the first photo, you also "see" the absence in the 2nd.
WITH!
The shoes tell a story. The flowers without the shoes are just very pretty flowers.
I agree that the shoes add a special something to the photograph. The clematis is gorgeous.
Without is a pretty photo - with tells a story and that's so much you - so with, definitely.
I like the shoes-makes me wonder who took them off and where did they walk off to : )
i like both - but chimes instead of shoes are a good choice too...
I like them both, but I like the first picture the best because it shows off that gorgeous purple clematis better than the second one.
Shoes represent human involvement in the garden. Yes. with the shoes. -- barbara
I believe the shoes have it. But, of course, it does depend on the intent of the picture.
Did you feel someone looking over your shoulder lately? That was me, visiting.
If I get this post....
red stilettos because you have a secret life outside the garden and a zest for beautiful things.
;)
Both are really good compositions and the best one is always the one that tells the story best. So, the choice is yours!
I like the shoe story. :-)
Post a Comment