Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Live Oak  (Read 8616 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: November 19, 2006, 03:21:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I shot this image with my 1Ds and 17-40/4L @ 17mm. Do you think this is an effective use of wide-angle perspective exaggeration, or a gimmicky waste of time? Comments and constructive criticisms welcome as always.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 03:23:13 PM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2006, 04:58:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan......... I like the shot a lot. It's beautiful and graphic. It doesn't strike me as a gimmick.
I am interested in unusual tree photography. I think trees are a never ending source of a beautiful subject. I have a fine art series called"Nocturnal Botanica". It's trees and plants shot at night under available light: http://www.bernardwolf.com/nocturnalbotanica.html
I like your shot a lot. My personal opinion.
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2006, 05:47:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I love your image!  I love the look of live oaks, and have sometimes tried to photograph them to get the wild, knarled look across, though with much less success than you have.  I don't see anything gimmicky here at all.

Lisa
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5791



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2006, 06:24:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree.  I love the abstract movement of the branches interweaving with each other.  The building on the right side I could do without but it does provide a sense of perspective and scale.  No gimmicks to my eye.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2006, 06:28:45 PM »
ReplyReply

The perspective and wide angle treatment are great.  

As wolfnowl said, though, you could lose the house...  I think the fence provides sufficient scale.
Logged
davaglo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2006, 08:39:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Beautiful!! Thats an old tree!

Jerry
Logged

jrg
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2006, 07:16:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the compliments, everyone. The tree trunk is about 8-10 feet in diameter. I found it while driving from San Antonio to Corpus Christi, Texas. There was this abandoned RV park I stopped to shoot, and the property owner stopped by and gave me permission to shoot not only in the RV park (I had been shooting from the road), but a family cemetery behind the park with graves dating back to 1799, and also his front yard and this tree. That spur-of-the-moment stop ended up being the best shooting of the whole trip.
Logged

erusan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2006, 07:32:56 AM »
ReplyReply

The way the tree crawls all over the frame and towards the viewer makes this a compelling pic in my eyes. The building is not the best of backdrops perhaps (but this was already mentioned above), but the tree keeps enough weight to play the main role here.

I wonder if you did some blending or flash to get the branches all in similar detail? Perhaps some darker accents in the branch could help the main "flow" of the tree even more? Not knowing the scene, this can very well be a dumb comment. Forgive me if it is.
Logged

erusan
Tokyo, Japan
Webpage
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2006, 09:58:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan,

I like the image.  I agree that the building is not necessary, but there may not be a way to not feature it so it may have to stay.

My suggestion is to work on the tonality of the branches so that the details in the bark becomes more prominent, thereby shifting attention towards the tree and less towards the building.  There is a wealth of tones in the tree that are barely visible currently and which would make the image much richer if brought out.  Tonality control is one of the most important aspects of a fine image after composition.  You got the composition to be impressive.  Tone control is the next step.

ALain
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2006, 01:52:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I shot the tree from several angles, and the house is definitely a necessary evil. I've worked up another frame in the series and cropped it a bit wider, which unfortunately reveals a bit more of the house, but also brings out some interesting branch structures that don't really show up in the first version. In accordance with Alain's advice, I lightened up the branches a bit to bring out their texture. I'm working on my laptop right now, so tonality is a bit difficult to judge properly.
Logged

mitchdob
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2006, 02:00:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan:

I like the darker one. The gradient in the branches (in the original) make it more dimensional... and the tree more imposing. Just my 2 cents.
Logged
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2006, 03:46:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jonathan......... I like the shot a lot. It's beautiful and graphic. It doesn't strike me as a gimmick.
I am interested in unusual tree photography. I think trees are a never ending source of a beautiful subject. I have a fine art series called"Nocturnal Botanica". It's trees and plants shot at night under available light: http://www.bernardwolf.com/nocturnalbotanica.html
I like your shot a lot. My personal opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Good for you both.. best part of the day was seeing your images.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2006, 06:50:33 PM by WarrenRoos » Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
AWeil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2006, 04:57:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan, I like the tree a lot. Both versions, dark and light.
The house doesn't bother me, it gives the tree a sense of scale. What I would like to see is a straightening of the horizontal line (the fence) and the vertical line (the trunk of the tree) possibly together with the vertical lines of the building - if the latter is not possible then maybe straighten the trunk at the expense of the house - which could be either darker, lighter or a little blurred - which ever would move the house more into the background in order to reveal the lines a bit less.
Angela
Logged
cmcfiimei
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2006, 06:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I shot this image with my 1Ds and 17-40/4L @ 17mm. Do you think this is an effective use of wide-angle perspective exaggeration, or a gimmicky waste of time? Comments and constructive criticisms welcome as always.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not gimmicky at all - a nice original w-a shot.  It would be fine art if that distracting ranch-style modular home wasn't there.  Can you PS it out?
Logged
Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2006, 11:15:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd stick with the darker version.  The mood fits the subject better.

And I don't mind the house either.  It gives scale and context, and otherwise just melts unobtrusively into the background.

LIsa
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2006, 07:35:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder if you did some blending or flash to get the branches all in similar detail? Perhaps some darker accents in the branch could help the main "flow" of the tree even more? Not knowing the scene, this can very well be a dumb comment. Forgive me if it is.

I didn't use flash; lighting the tree evenly would have required multiple strobes and all I had with me was a 550EX. The tree branches in both versions already go all the way to the bottom of the tonal scale, so going darker isn't really an option.

I've been playing with the image some more; I decided to split the difference tonality-wise and go a bit darker, and did some more fiddling to bring out a bit more detail in the sky.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 08:20:45 AM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2006, 08:37:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I would like to see is a straightening of the horizontal line (the fence) and the vertical line (the trunk of the tree) possibly together with the vertical lines of the building - if the latter is not possible then maybe straighten the trunk at the expense of the house - which could be either darker, lighter or a little blurred - which ever would move the house more into the background in order to reveal the lines a bit less.

The horizon in this shot is actually level; the fence angles away from the camera as it goes to the right of the frame. Straightening the trunk would increase the angle of the fence, and vice versa.
Logged

alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2006, 11:58:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't use flash; lighting the tree evenly would have required multiple strobes and all I had with me was a 550EX. The tree branches in both versions already go all the way to the bottom of the tonal scale, so going darker isn't really an option.

I've been playing with the image some more; I decided to split the difference tonality-wise and go a bit darker, and did some more fiddling to bring out a bit more detail in the sky.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jonathan,

Very nice.  I like your second version the best.  The third one shows less detail/texture in the uppermost branches than the second one.  We already have drama from the composition, so in my view tone control should be about bringing information about details and tone separation rather than adding more drama.

Alain
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 12:00:51 PM by alainbriot » Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2006, 12:22:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Since the upper branches were quite a bit darker than the rest, I did some more tweaking and lightened then up a bit to kind of match the rest of the tree, but left the rest of the image alone. Here's version #4:
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8068



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2006, 04:02:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan,

I'll vote for version 4. Nice tree!

But I'd still like to see you clone out the house and replace it with a mirror image of the fence.    

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad