More from the River Cypress

[Chris Calohan]

[wolfnowl]

Well done.  Wouldn't change it.

Mike.

[Rob C]

Well done.  Wouldn't change it.

Mike.

At great risk of running into short posts controversy: +1!

Very complete picture.

;-)

Rob

[opgr]

I would possibly use a gradient in the lower right corner to reduce the brightness there.

I would also like to see a bit more definition in the cloud, since it is a b&w conversion you may get away with over-the-top highlight recovery.

I would like to see some more separation of the trees from the background at the base if possible, because that is where the restingpoint is imo.

Further more it would be useful if there was actually something happening in the image. A large bird in the tree, or near the waterfront. A worn boat perhaps, or something other entirely.

It is presumably meant as an atmospheric image, but I currently don't quite catch what atmosphere?

[Chris Calohan]

This is more probably a result of different monitor calibrations as there no "over-brightness" in the water (I've checked the tonal values twice), the clouds are pretty well defined, in fact in the translation perhaps a tad too much so. I did not mean it as an atmospheric image but as a portrait of cypress trees. As to separating the fore trees from the rest of the trees in the background which are also cypress in various stages of groth, I'd rather try to separate a lion cub from its mother.

Thanks for you comments and those of Mike and Rob.

[opgr]

This is more probably a result of different monitor calibrations as there no "over-brightness" in the water

I meant post-process gradient, to tone down a corner of less interest.

the clouds are pretty well defined, in fact in the translation perhaps a tad too much so.

If you think "definition" equates "clipping" then you've made an absolute master-conversion...

I did not mean it as an atmospheric image but as a portrait of cypress trees.

Would be a good reason to separate the forest from the trees then no? But I wasn't referring to the trees themselves, I was referring to their base. The lower part of the image. The tree trunks kind of blend in the darkness where a bit more separation might (I repeat: MIGHT) create some more interest. Whether it actually does create more interest, either for me, you, or anyone else, I obviously don't know. I also don't care to discuss it if snarky remarks is the collective idea of open-minded conversations about composition and rendition. 

[Chris Calohan]

Snarky remarks? They were explanations of what I saw and what I was trying to accomplish. I am by far a long way from being a PS master and take everything suggested as a reference, including your remarks..e.nough so that I am in the middle of a new conversion. I missed the clipped clouds.

[Mjollnir]

I meant post-process gradient, to tone down a corner of less interest.

If you think "definition" equates "clipping" then you've made an absolute master-conversion...

Would be a good reason to separate the forest from the trees then no? But I wasn't referring to the trees themselves, I was referring to their base. The lower part of the image. The tree trunks kind of blend in the darkness where a bit more separation might (I repeat: MIGHT) create some more interest. Whether it actually does create more interest, either for me, you, or anyone else, I obviously don't know. I also don't care to discuss it if snarky remarks is the collective idea of open-minded conversations about composition and rendition. 

Huh?

Sorry, I must have missed the snark there.

That post looks %100 snark-free to me.