Church and Bench
After posting this image, mention was made that possibly the “pole” in the image should be, well, removed. The problem was I couldn’t remember a “pole” being near the Church and really couldn’t remember a tree either.
I was sure I knew the answer but had to double check myself before I responded to the thread with my thoughts.
There in lies the rub with taking pictures and traveling. Sometimes I spend so much time setting up pictures and looking for the next picture I don't take time to really look around at where I am. I don't stop and smell the roses so to speak. Quite a few of the “memories” I have are the images I take. I wonder how much I miss in the process. The memories I have are great and I remember a lot of details at any rate but I wonder if you do your self a disservice in the process.
Well, in order to respond to the questions I needed to go back to see just what the pole really was. The "pole" is in actuality a very tall Elm. It has no braches until it gets about 25 feet above the level of the cross on the church. That level is also about the top of the bluff and I'm sure has something to do with why it canopies so high. But I couldn’t remember if it was pole or a tree. Even though I’ve been there a dozen times, with camera in hand, I hadn’t “looked” hard enough to remember the “pole”.
Now my question......is the "pole" less of a distraction knowing it is a tree? Does it become a natural part of the scene? How do our perceptions and pre-conceived ideas of the natural order change to fit the scenario? Do you look as hard as you think you do?
What do you think? I think I need to spend a bit more time on the bench, just looking.