|
| Group |
Round |
C/R |
Comment |
Date |
Image |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Reply |
I like it, too. But I wonder if there's hope of revealing any detail in the trees? When I read Machael's comment (the teepees as the source of light), it occurs to me that a radial filter might make it possible to reveal some, closer to the teepees, fading away to the darkness ... |
May 24th |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Really astonishing, Michael! I generally have no interest in this kind of processing, but I think, in this case, you've succeeded massively specifically by pushing the boundaries so far. |
May 18th |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Agreed, it's a powerful image, and I do like the choice to present it in a square format. However, I also agree that the foreground water is disturbing, and once I found the waterfowl, they were distracting, too. If you're willing to lose some of the real estate (at it looks like you have the pixels to do it), you might experiment with a 4 x 5 crop, placing the center of the sun on the crosshairs of a golden ration grid.
Pulling up the exposure a tad in the foliage also shows a bit more color, which appeals to me, even though it makes the lens flare (I assume that's what I'm seeing?) more apparent.
Kudos for capturing the moment! And to your guide for sharing it with you. |
May 18th |
 |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Darcy, I too like the image. I'm glad you're starting to experiment with post-processing. It can be fun, if one looks at it as a means to an end ("how can i ....?") rather than as a chore ("... now I gotta ...").
I hadn't read the upper portion as mountains, and found that the interesting portion is limited to about half the real estate. Applying a 2 x 3 format crop, positioning the cluster of teepees on the right so they land in the rule of thirds crosshairs, I think, makes a stronger image.
Also, while I agree that you did a good job on the B&W conversion, and it's certainly not over-processed, I'm not sure I understand your motivation. Yes, there are a few issues with the color version, but they are easily addressed: toning down (desaturating and darkening) the water, shifting the hue of the sand a bit towards the red end, lightening up the center, and pulling up the whites of the teepees even further.
My approach to post-processing is to look at the image, and then ask: "How would I like this to be different?" Once I know that, I experiment 'til I figure out how to achieve that. (With experience, it takes less experimenting.) Rinse and repeat.
|
May 18th |
 |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Reply |
threw |
May 18th |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Interesting. I was back into my own local woods last week for the first time in several, and saw quite a few ewind-broken trees there, too.
"Documentary" character notwithstanding, I think there are a couple of edits that could add to the impact. Add you know me, by now: I find it hard to resist the temptation to fiddle.
First of all, I think the perspective effect is quite distracting, so I lined them up so they were (almost) all vertical. Second, I suspect your intent is to convey something of the sense of violence involved, so I cropped down to a 5x4 format, eliminating a lot of the sky and foreground and nearly filling the frame with the broken tree. Pumped the vibrance just a little bit, spread out the histogram a bit, added a radial filter centered on the point of the break to push the contrast a bit further, and finally through a soft vignette around it. |
May 18th |
 |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Ayup, the "lonely tree ..." ... my submission this month, though titled "Meadow and Wildflowers" could also have easily been "Lonely Tree in Meadow". I wonder, sometimes, whether we photographers might feel a kinship with said lonely (or lonesome) trees.
I didn't look at the original at first, so my assessment of the color in the posted image didn't look at it in terms of what you did in post. For myself, I found the colors plausible, though perhaps a rare experience; I like them. I'd note, though, that in the spirit of realism, you might ask yourself: if there's redish light coming from the right, what effect does it have on the clouds to the left? I submit you might heighten the believability by adding a hint of red/orange blush. Also, if the light is that reddish, then the sun is *very* low in the sky, and the sky is darker.
As for the cactus in the foreground: I do think it doesn't contribute, and once seen, it competes with the tree for my attention; it doesn't win, but the tree loses for it.
'Nuf already said re getting lower, and I too think that good advice, but I'll say that I don't think in this case the image suffered that much ... |
May 17th |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Comment |
Intriguing take on the "lonely tree" trope. The image is gorgeous, technically very well done, and I like the mood (to me, sort of a mix between optimism and death). The exposure is spot on and it's not so common to see the image shot with the water approaching, rather than receeding; I like the effect. I'll disagree with Jerry regarding removing the branch on the left; I think it helps with creating a group of three, setting up a triangle for the eye to wonder around in. If I were to quibble, I'd have liked just a little more open space to the right and left; but then, that might not have been possible. |
May 16th |
| 93 |
May 21 |
Reply |
Thanks, Jerry. I seem to be one of that rare breed who actually *enjoys* the fastidiousness. I often spend more time in post than I did in the field. Now, I understand full well that one doesn't get credit for hard work, only for the results! |
May 16th |
6 comments - 3 replies for Group 93
|
6 comments - 3 replies Total
|
