light olive shaded leaves are good, though when far away to get the right texture. grass is the biggest problem, but again distance helps. going all green (like matthew's football moat) can also work in a taking the bull by the horns kind of way.
here are my two green photos (out of 57,983 taken):
i think the issue is primarily on of texture and to do with the main green things around us which are grass and leaves. when you a not far away and the whole area isn't sufficient homogenised, the shadowy parts create an erratic textural effect that's like a sort of visual noise. grass in back and white photography is often equally jarring if short, although there are contrast techniques to minimise the effect.
i don't know how covining this is. i have a friend who doesn't see/think that complimentary colours go well together and thinks blue with greeen is nicer than blue with orange.
to me, this is something that doesnt need explaining when we have millions of pictures around us to look at and see, not to mention our own efforts. (just look through my website and you will see that there is practically no green--that's a nice, braod and unbiased sample ;-)
This is the unwritten upside of global warming -- when all the plants die there will be less risk of amateurs inadvertantly producing green photographs and offending the sensibilites of Canadian aesthetes.
I think we might need a thread here where we all add our Vuk style rules. Mine would be "Never photograph pets unless they are dead". Or maybe "Never press the shutter when the number of minutes past the hour is a prime number".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.