HMmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[chrisc]

A dilemma in my "eye" exists on two planes. The first sees this shot as a nice contrast between the backdrop and the foreground. The second sees the foreground as an object against a natural background. I did not treat it particularly different in either "eye's view. But am curious as to how you perceive this image and perhaps an insight to any possible madness I may be experiencing.

[adunivan]

When I look at this photo, I am viewing it as foreground against a natural background. This may be due to the "blur" of the background. My eye is drawn to the tree, water, and dried grass in the foreground and the sky and trees add a natural color to it.

[jjbacoomba]

I second Anne's comment.

[Antonio Correia]

The complexity of the texture of the foreground attracts my vison at once and then I look at the background and I perceive their reciprocal relation.

I think this is an important factor of the photograph presented.
Just imagine - I am going to use my stupid example of the extremes which works great, you will see - just imagine as I was saying, that behind the tree struture there was a porno image. ;D Yes. A porno image
What an idea you say ! If that would happen I bet the main attraction of the image would be the background. I bet and I would win.

But instead, you have a field with a small pond, a bit of sky, in the mood of the structural frame of the tree and your attention is attracted by it.

So, the two fields - background and foreground - because of their reciprocal and dialectic relationship attract each other, facilitating the reading of the image which depends on the cultural background of observer.

I am very philosophical for a change Only today.

[Barry]

With the foreground being in focus, this grabs my eye first, but felt there was just too much of this shrub/tree. A single branch almost filling the frame would had been so much stronger. As the soft background tells you it's location nicely.