Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: An oak at Santa Rosa Plateau  (Read 1617 times)
tom w
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« on: February 28, 2012, 12:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Trying out a new lens early in the morning.
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1719


« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2012, 03:47:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Lots of good stuff here, Tom. IMHO, the tree looks a bit bright given the backlighting. This allows us to see the texture (good) but makes the tree and thus the whole image a little flat (not so good). I would keep the tree a little darker and think about ways to perhaps increase its overall dimensionality.
Scott
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2012, 06:21:23 PM »
ReplyReply

1) There are some "holes" in the photograph where patches of the sky are pretty much white.

From the length of the exposure I guess you used a tripod? That would allow both a long exposure for the shaded foreground plus a shorter exposure the clipped sky and distant leaves - and then blend with something like enfuse.

An alternative would be to use RAW, expose so the sky isn't quite clipped, and then check what can be recovered from the shadows.

2) If it's somewhere local to you, I think you could have some fun working the same scene in different conditions - I imagine the ground would be more interesting after rain - but the bark might just be darker and less interesting.

3) It could be fun to process the image some more...

Logged
tom w
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2012, 12:48:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Scott and Isaac,
Thanks for your critiques on the oak.
Scott, I really don't see the image as a little flat. The oak in the background which echoes the shape of the oak in the foreground, being a bit lighter gives the image, to my eye, dimensionality. One of the reasons I photograph oaks is because of their strong shapes and wonderful texture. So, my intention was to emphasis these characteristics in this image. (I was using a newly acquired Zeiss lens and it is true... they do "paint".)
Isaac, I don't really see a problem with the "holes". I generally try to avoid blown out highlights, but there is no detail in the bright patches of sky and I think they add to the atmospherics of the image. It was shot early in the morning looking East.
Thanks,
Tom
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2012, 02:06:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't really see a problem with the "holes"
Do you want the patches of sky with no detail to be the focus of attention in the photo?

The "holes" are the brightest thing in the photo - so that's where we'll look. The "holes" have high contrast edges - so that's where we'll look.
Logged
tom w
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2012, 03:12:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Granted the eye may go first to the brightest area of a photograph. But, if one looks only at the bright areas one will not see the whole image. Do we hear only to the loudest parts of a piece of music?
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2012, 06:32:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Granted the eye may go first to the brightest area of a photograph.
Think about that - Do you want the eye to go first to the patches of sky with no detail?

But, if one looks only at the bright areas one will not see the whole image.
One doesn't look only at the bright areas - one's attention is dragged back to the bright areas again and again and again.

Do we hear only to the loudest parts of a piece of music?
Do we hear only the loudest instruments when quiet instruments are played at the same moment?
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2012, 07:24:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Scott, I really don't see...
You don't have to agree with Scott's comments but remember that he can probably be a lot more dispassionate about your photo than you can.

So, my intention was to emphasis these characteristics in this image.
"If your intention is not manifested in the body of the work itself, it is of little consequence. You will not be present to explain it and defend it." (88) 101 Things to Learn in Art School

Isaac, I don't really see a problem with the "holes"...
You don't have to agree with criticism and you don't have to be defensive - just learn what you can from how others view your photos.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2012, 08:46:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Think about that - Do you want the eye to go first to the patches of sky with no detail?
One doesn't look only at the bright areas - one's attention is dragged back to the bright areas again and again and again.
Do we hear only the loudest instruments when quiet instruments are played at the same moment?

+1
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2012, 08:47:08 PM »
ReplyReply

You don't have to agree with Scott's comments but remember that he can probably be a lot more dispassionate about your photo than you can.
"If your intention is not manifested in the body of the work itself, it is of little consequence. You will not be present to explain it and defend it." (88) 101 Things to Learn in Art School
You don't have to agree with criticism and you don't have to be defensive - just learn what you can from how others view your photos.

+1
Logged
sdwilsonsct
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1719


« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2012, 09:20:47 PM »
ReplyReply

"If your intention is not manifested in the body of the work itself, it is of little consequence. You will not be present to explain it and defend it."

Isaac,
Is "it" the intention or the work?  I agree with the second part.
Scott
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2012, 12:35:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Is "it" the intention or the work?
My reading is that in the first sentence "it" is the intention.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad