Really Can't Make Up My Mind

[Rob MacKillop]

I want to print this one, but I really can't make my mind up between the two. With the runner or without? When he's there he distracts from the tree. When he's not there, he distracts by being missing! I know he was there!

Make my mind up for me...With or without?

Tree by RobMacKillop, on Flickr


Tree Runner by RobMacKillop, on Flickr​

 

[Hamish Gill]

With for me

 

[David Mitchell]

With but perhaps cropped to include just the 1 tree on the left and reduce some of the foregound at the bottom?

 

[Paul Lange]

I'd say go for the bottom one but crop about a fifth of the way in on the RHS

 

[Davie Hudson]

without for me, don't see the need for people in pictures

 

[Kev Pugh]

The runner is a distraction for me so I'll say without..

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, guys. I'm loath to CTC* with film, as I'm trying to force myself to take more time lining up a shot. So I've decided for the time being at least to not crop film shots. I'm not implying cropping is cheating, rather I just want to slow down my shooting experience, take more in. And if later I feel it could have been better, then I'll think about that the next time. Digital shots, on the other hand...

As for the runner...I'm still unsure! I'll come back to it in a month's time.

Rob


*Crop The Crap

 

[David Mitchell]

Runner aside, those are nice photos

 

[Pete Askew]

I'd go with the version without the runner. He does have a sort of short-term attraction I suppose but, printed and on the wall, I think the overall compositions holds up fine and the detail on the horizon will be the element of depth that draws you in.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Pete. Your comments are alway thoughtful, and appreciated.

 

[Paul Lange]

The comment about cropping was a joke BTW. Obviously a bad joke as you didn't get it . Looking at them again and being serious this time I think the the compo is strong enough that the image without the runner is the one to go for.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Oh, I get it NOW! Choose the one with the guy, but crop him out. Ha ha

 

[Beth Carter]

without for me too.

 

[Stephen McCullough]

Nice shots.
Perhaps it depends a little on what each one makes you feel.

I would consider going without the tree on the left; I find the straight line of what appears to be a pole behind the tree way more distracting than the runner. To me the runner adds some sense of scale, and increases the sense of isolation, while also piquing curiosity.

But then even my parents think I am odd.

Really though, nice captures.

 

[Adam Lewis]

For me i'd say without, I'm picturing the image blown up large in a gallery, the runner (from far away enough - and from a strangers point of view) may look like a blip or printing error? If he was closer, and thus larger and more defined against his/her background, I'd say to keep him there.

They are great photos though, I really like them either way, I don't know if a nature shot should just contain nature, I feel the picture is a true timeless piece without the runner.
My 2p there lol

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Rob smashing images. Why bother with the aggro of making a decision. Print both.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Solution! Thank you, Mr de'Courcy!

Thanks to everyone else for their thoughtful comments.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I like with - just to be contrary

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Grrr...

 

[Paul Lange]

Why don't you print the one without the runner up massive and then put on some running gear and jog about in front of it. Turn it into a bit of a photography, installation, live performance art piece?