Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The tree  (Read 2728 times)
David Jilek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« on: August 05, 2012, 08:32:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I like this image a lot but I feel its just missing a little something. Maybe not. Thoughts? I'm not sure if I would like it with more contrast or not.
Logged
degrub
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 246


« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2012, 12:16:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The lighting of the grass draws my eye away from the tree. For me, the tree is in the way of a very nice image.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2012, 03:20:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I would be tempted to lighten the entire image just a little. You might try two or three lighter variants and then look at them before deciding. A tiny bit too light would kill the lovely mood, but just a bit lighter might help (or it might not.)
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2012, 04:57:42 PM »
ReplyReply

It's missing the 'why' or the purpose you compose a shot.  There is something you want the viewer to see.  The tree looks to be standing in front of it and is very nondescript in itself.  It's processed in such a way to induce a loose facsimile of banding across the sky and I can't see why.  I just see no why.   The how is easy, it looks over processed, perhaps in a plug-in like Topaz or FX Mystical or whatever.  Not being a fine arts guy it could be me missing something, but this is what I see when I look at this image.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2012, 05:04:35 PM »
ReplyReply

What were you after when you made this shot, David? Was the tree what grabbed you, or was it the fog? I think what the other posters are saying is that they can't see the point of the picture. I can't either, but I'm sure something about the scene drew you to the shot.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2012, 05:06:24 PM by RSL » Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2012, 06:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'll stick my neck out here and say that this picture does not fall short in making a point -  a deeply personal point that would probably vary from person to person to quite an extent.

For me this image is to be be listened to rather than looked at.  It is saying a lot to me.  Maybe you can turn up the volume a little by responding to what you hear in it David.

Logged
David Jilek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2012, 07:11:27 PM »
ReplyReply

  Walter your correct its more about listening. This struck me as very much like something from the Barbizon school. More a French landscape painting. There is a strength in the isolation and the softness to me.  Its not a image that is supposed to hit you up side the head more of one you keep coming back to for a little taste of something but not sure what. 
  Two hours later the sun burned off all the fog and the tree was lost to the forest in the background.  I do like the comments on this one. They all express a different point of view. No one is right or wrong. I bet if we look at this image ten years from now all of our responses might be very different.
David
 
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2029


« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2012, 07:50:51 PM »
ReplyReply

...For me, the tree is in the way of a very nice image...

I am inclined to agree.
A slight increase in contrast would also help IMHO.

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2012, 09:29:01 PM »
ReplyReply

David, I love the mood the image evokes for me.

What I am however distracted by is the vignetting. On my screen it seems to be 'clumpy' in the corners. The dark corners seem to be just too prominent and not graduating enough into the image. I'm not sure whether it is a characteristic of your lens...or your processing effect. I would personally have a play with the vignetting a bit, because for me that is what is making the image not quite work to the best of what I think it could.

I wouldn't increase the contrast, because I think it may lose the feeling of the softness of the image ...and that there is some sort of ambiguity about it 'standing out' and 'not standing out' which I quite like.

Sensor may need a bit of a clean as well and a bit of chink removal during processing - top left corner.

Julie
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2012, 12:38:29 PM »
ReplyReply

"Sensor may need a bit of a clean as well and a bit of chink removal during processing - top left corner.

Julie"



Julie, it's a bird - it always is in landscape.

Actually, I rather like the picture; if anything, I might be inclined to find another shot with a slightly larger 'bird' and clone it across, if only because I recently relearned how to do that after having realised I could no longer do it...

The viggy looks like the wrong hood had been used - I'd make it somewhat bigger, lighter, but more graded - just a suggestion of darkening. Overall, I'd like to see a colder, more wintery colour running through it all. Fog and warm colours only go with clothes, not nature unless it's freaky weather.

Boy, I feel expansive today! Must be something I eat.

Rob C
 
 
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2012, 01:21:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Julie, it's a bird - it always is in landscape.

Yes, a perfectly round bird with no wings.
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2012, 01:40:40 PM »
ReplyReply

It is a Cheshire Bird, Russ.


" ...  and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the beak, and ending with the cloaca, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2012, 02:31:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I like it as it stands, although the vignette is a little heavy-handed. It's attractive to look at and I don't mind (I never mind, really) the lack of "message". If it were mine, I'd probably have put the tree off-centre, more likely than not to the left, but that's not a criticism.

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2012, 02:47:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I like it as it stands, although the vignette is a little heavy-handed. It's attractive to look at and I don't mind (I never mind, really) the lack of "message". If it were mine, I'd probably have put the tree off-centre, more likely than not to the left, but that's not a criticism.

Jeremy



Quite right, Jeremy; anyone seeking messages should check their telephone or fax or even, dare I say it, their postbox.

A picture is a pěcture; give it a break!

Rob C
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2012, 06:18:48 PM »
ReplyReply

David, I really like the idea behind the shot, I love the lighting and the tone and the nice 'Old Master' painterly feel to most of the image. I also don't find the subject matter confusing or ambiguous, as the image for me is simply about shape, texture, lighting, colour and mood, which you have definitely captured. However I have to agree with Jule, that your sensor needs a good clean and I will also agree and say that I am not at all keen on the corner thumb print style of vignette. Also when I view the image at 100%, the artefacting around the upper branches of the tree and the posterization and weird blocky coloured banding in the sky and fog are very noticeable, yet none of these artefacts appear in the foreground grassy area, which is both soft and pleasantly grainy.

So I as I say, I really like the idea of the shot etc, but there are just too many problems with this version of it to be a winner for me I am afraid.

If this is just the effects of using a very high compression ratio on a large dimensioned but low res image, then try resizing down to about 800 or 900 pixels on the longest side first, then save it out to a medium res JPG at a compression ratio of 10. You will end with something like a 150k to 250k file, that is small and easy to upload, yet still big enough for the forum members to view at a reasonable size, but not compressed to the point where it noticeably affects the image quality.

Dave
Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
David Jilek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2012, 08:03:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I will be reprocessing this image and giving it a second go around. Hang tight it might be later this week but it will happen.
Thanks for all the great comments.
David
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2012, 10:26:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I am frankly astonished at the posts from competent photographers that don't seem to get this image. I find it very expressive and most of the suggestions so far seem like nitpicking to me.

Yes, clone out the round dust speck in the upper left to make the pixel peepers happy, and perhaps try some slight reprocessing, but don't lose the lovely mood that this image has right now. It's one of the best "landscapes" I've seen on LuLa recently.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2012, 02:43:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I am frankly astonished at the posts from competent photographers that don't seem to get this image. I find it very expressive and most of the suggestions so far seem like nitpicking to me.

Yes, clone out the round dust speck in the upper left to make the pixel peepers happy, and perhaps try some slight reprocessing, but don't lose the lovely mood that this image has right now. It's one of the best "landscapes" I've seen on LuLa recently.

Yes!

Quite right, Jeremy; anyone seeking messages should check their telephone or fax or even, dare I say it, their postbox.

A picture is a pěcture; give it a break!

OK, Rob, just to show that I'm observant, I'll bite: why the grave accent over the "i"?

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2012, 03:07:19 AM »
ReplyReply


OK, Rob, just to show that I'm observant, I'll bite: why the grave accent over the "i"?

Jeremy



I i ě... goodness, I hardly thought it was possible to print that!

I suspect that it's the combination of two factors: my new habit of trying to use my specs less and less in order to circumvent the effects of too much time gazing at life at one distance - I often think I can see as well without them at this range - and then find that I can't; I am convinced that I am developing dyslexic fingers tips. I appear to make many mnore typing errors than I used to, errorrs such as writing umch for much, reror for error and so on. Another favourite is to hit two keys at once, such as in gopne This trick involves a lot of checking out and correction, but then, if the specs are being denied...

Good viewing on your part!

;-)

Rob
Logged

jule
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 738


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2012, 07:21:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I am frankly astonished at the posts from competent photographers that don't seem to get this image. I find it very expressive and most of the suggestions so far seem like nitpicking to me.

Yes, clone out the round dust speck in the upper left to make the pixel peepers happy, and perhaps try some slight reprocessing, but don't lose the lovely mood that this image has right now. It's one of the best "landscapes" I've seen on LuLa recently.

Hi Eric, Just to clarify, my opening comments were actually about the fact that "I love the image evokes for me"... I then commented on that I was distracted by the vignetting - which I was - and offered a suggestion of playing with variations a bit. I then commented that I wouldn't increase the contrast because I liked the softness of the image. ..and then on a personal interpretive level commented on how I reflected on the ambiguity of 'standing out' and 'not standing out' which was illicited for me which I quite liked.

Only then did out of courtesy comment that David's sensor may require cleaning... and I din't consider it pixel peeping... it was just something I saw. I have benefited from people bringing that to my attention in the past, and didn't consider it to be an inappropriate comment.. especially after offering considered feedback prior to the last statement about the sensor.

Julie

Julie

Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad