Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Tree and the Grand Canyon  (Read 2213 times)
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« on: June 13, 2009, 01:48:01 PM »
ReplyReply

My intent here was to showcase the gnarled branches of this tree against the background of the Grand Canyon. I kept the background deliberately out of focus because I was afraid of competition between the two elements. Thoughts please.
[attachment=14520:Lorraine...ersion_3.jpg]

Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6553



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2009, 01:57:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
My intent here was to showcase the gnarled branches of this tree against the background of the Grand Canyon. I kept the background deliberately out of focus because I was afraid of competition between the two elements. Thoughts please.

Pup, The gnarled branches are good but try backing off and including the whole tree. I guarantee the branches will still be gnarled.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2009, 01:58:42 PM by RSL » Logged

shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2009, 02:37:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Pup, The gnarled branches are good but try backing off and including the whole tree. I guarantee the branches will still be gnarled.

Russ,
I had read somewhere to zoom in on such subjects when it was the "gnarliness" that you wanted to highlight in your shot; no? I am also the product of looking at other shots shared by folks who are at my same level of understanding. So many old habits to break. Which one do you suggest I tackle first?
Logged
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2009, 04:23:32 PM »
ReplyReply

What do you like for yourself in this image, and what not, Shutterpup?
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2009, 04:34:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christian Miersch
What do you like for yourself in this image, and what not, Shutterpup?

What I like are the gnarled branches. For this particular tree, dead as it was, there was little going on in the left part of the tree and trunk. In a way, it was half a tree; I shot the branches that existed. I like that the background is not competing with the main focus of the shot, but it is clearly a canyon and a colorful one at that. I tried converting this to black and white. The branches look like they have good tonality but the background is a washed out nothingness and the sky competes with the background for being just blah.
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2009, 01:12:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I think this has some potential in B&W, especially if you play with the Luminance a bit.  The background isn't really important here, unless you specifically want to say that this tree died at the edge of the Grand Canyon.

[attachment=14542:Lorraine...ersion_3.jpg]

In B&W, you obviously don't have colour to work for you, so you have to fall back on tone, texture, contrast, etc.

Here are a couple of examples...

Triceratops
[attachment=14541:IMG_5428.jpg]

Black Willow
[attachment=14540:IMG_4371.jpg]

Mike.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 01:13:39 AM by wolfnowl » 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
cmi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2009, 02:53:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
What I like are the gnarled branches. For this particular tree, dead as it was, there was little going on in the left part of the tree and trunk. In a way, it was half a tree; I shot the branches that existed. I like that the background is not competing with the main focus of the shot, but it is clearly a canyon and a colorful one at that. I tried converting this to black and white. The branches look like they have good tonality but the background is a washed out nothingness and the sky competes with the background for being just blah.

I very much like the appearance of the blured background. What I dont like is the tilted horizon, the black in the branches wich doesnt let me see what I want to see but most important the framing.

I made the experience that depicting a single tree can be quite hard, at least I got some really boring, or half-working results from it  You need to spend time and figure out what factors make it interesting, and you might also find out that a certain location just doesnt give a decent image, at least not with what you are able to do at the point you are standing. But another location might. At least thats my experience with single trees, at some places I tried endless photos, and threw away all of them because the result was so booooooooooring. At other occasions however I just made one image wich worked right away. So if you really liked the place maybe there is possibility to come back alone, take your time, relax, and experiment a bit.

Christian

Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2009, 06:40:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
I think this has some potential in B&W, especially if you play with the Luminance a bit.  The background isn't really important here, unless you specifically want to say that this tree died at the edge of the Grand Canyon.

[attachment=14542:Lorraine...ersion_3.jpg]

In B&W, you obviously don't have colour to work for you, so you have to fall back on tone, texture, contrast, etc.

Here are a couple of examples...

Triceratops
[attachment=14541:IMG_5428.jpg]

Black Willow
[attachment=14540:IMG_4371.jpg]

Mike.


Mike,
The conversion that you did with my shot is similar to the one I did when I had a trial of Elements for Mac. I think it's a matter of establishing that blasted background; if that's not necessary, then I definitely prefer the black and white version. I wasn't able to get the tones out of the background/sky that you were. Mine were hopelessly blown out. Is it time for me to consider PS?

I see what you mean by tone, texture and contrast taking front row in black and white by your examples.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 06:42:22 AM by shutterpup » Logged
Jack Varney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2009, 08:30:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice job with the tree textures. My eyes tend to follow the tree limbs out to the right of the image where the distant canyon leaves me stranded. I think the tree can stand on its own merit.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 08:31:11 PM by Beachconnection » Logged

Jack Varney
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2009, 09:45:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Beachconnection
Nice job with the tree textures. My eyes tend to follow the tree limbs out to the right of the image where the distant canyon leaves me stranded. I think the tree can stand on its own merit.


Jack,
What exactly are you saying? I interpret your comment to be that there is too much canyon on the right of the shot. Am I right here?
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2009, 12:24:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shutterpup
Mike,
The conversion that you did with my shot is similar to the one I did when I had a trial of Elements for Mac. I think it's a matter of establishing that blasted background; if that's not necessary, then I definitely prefer the black and white version. I wasn't able to get the tones out of the background/sky that you were. Mine were hopelessly blown out. Is it time for me to consider PS?

I see what you mean by tone, texture and contrast taking front row in black and white by your examples.

I did the B&W in Lightroom - first set all of the Saturation sliders to zero (I use a preset for that) and then adjusted Luminance, lighting and contrast.  I also used the brush tool to add some negative clarity and sharpening to the background, but it was a quick pass.

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
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4118



« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2009, 02:27:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
I did the B&W in Lightroom - first set all of the Saturation sliders to zero (I use a preset for that) and then adjusted Luminance, lighting and contrast.  I also used the brush tool to add some negative clarity and sharpening to the background, but it was a quick pass.
Mike, what advantage do you consider that method has over clicking the "greyscale" button and then fiddling with the various sliders?

Jeremy
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2009, 01:26:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy:  There's some debate about that, even within different versions of Lightroom.  I started using this technique a couple of years ago based on a video by Martin Evening, here, and it works for me.

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
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 4118



« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2009, 01:53:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: wolfnowl
Jeremy:  There's some debate about that, even within different versions of Lightroom.  I started using this technique a couple of years ago based on a video by Martin Evening, here, and it works for me.
Thanks for the link, Mike. I'll have a look.

Jeremy

Later: well, I've watched the video and played with the technique and I'm very impressed. I think it's more difficult to use than the greyscale blender but the results look as if they might be far better once I'm reasonably familiar with the method. I'd noticed noise in the skies and wondered where it came from. Thanks again.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 02:36:25 AM by kikashi » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad