Nice pictures overall, and they will provide you with some great memories. That's what it's about, isn't it? I have just a few general comments, mostly for next time.
I noticed that whenever there is a trail, you put it in, and it sometimes occupies a fairly large part of the picture. The trail is utilitarian. It just gets you from one place to another while limiting the area of destruction of vegetation. It's a little patch of controlled destruction--a necessary evil. It is visually rather plain, unnatural, and just something that gets you to an interesting place. There's nothing inherently interesting or wondrous or beautiful about it. I think it's photographed just because it's there and it's easy. It's the least common denominator, and it takes some ingenuity to omit it from the picture. The same goes for roads. I've seen pictures of a vast expanse of asphalt and a little mountain in the distance. The notion of a "leading line" is often mentioned, but that's probably a cliche. Your eye will notice the trees, and I think a trail is just a visual distraction.
I think you have to decide what you want to photograph: nature or the non-decorative, utilitarian object that gets you to the trees. I know that this will prompt people to reply who have been photographing the path forever. It's not bad. I just hope that you will look at it with fresh eyes and take some time to consider it.
Likewise for the people. Is it your aim to show of people seeing this for the first time? It doesn't really show that. It's just random some people. They're not even looking up. It might work better if it's people you know. Is it for "scale"? We all know these trees are large, and this picture doesn't really show off anything surprising or astounding on that subject. I feel that people in a picture for "scale" is just a cliche anyway. Sometimes good, but overused.
The flowers really need better depth of field, or flowers that are closer to being in focus. I feel that one or two flowers in focus and one or two badly out of focus doesn't work well.
I really appreciate your feedback!
I never thought of intentionally excluding a trail, and in reality feel that it might be difficult to manage as I haven't really hiked in the true wilderness yet. As you said, it might be worth trying next time. I did have a few with more "interesting" trail components. Take a look and let me know your thoughts?
This one, for example, shows the shallow roots of the redwood, which is a fascinating fact about these giant trees. You may say that the trail is still distracting, though.
Or this one. I know it still has an unexcited person, but I wanted to highlight that tall lone tree and that peculiar opening in the woods.
As for people, this was really my first attempt to put them next to the trees for size comparisons. So that cliche wasn't too cliche for someone green like me.
It would have been great if they were looking up or showing excitement. It just wasn't something I could have controlled.
But, I did try to do a portrait series for my teenage daughter, which cooperated reluctantly at best. This one was spontaneous and shows the trees' scales.
As for flowers, I'm assuming you are talking about the one of the starflowers? Yeah, low light, handheld--would have been difficult to crank the aperture up to 14 or above. I do agree, though, that photo's composition has room to improve.
Let's see this one of the common berry flowers.
Again, I love this discussion. I hope you don't feel I am rebuffing your comments, which, in fact, I found very contructive. Thank you!
--
A scientist with an art-loving heart.
Explore Wenyu Zhang’s 2,823 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com
By all means, keep making pictures that please you, and also keep in mind compositions off the trail. Hmm, but you have done that already. There! Is that perfectly clear? 