Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: tom w on February 28, 2012, 01:24:32 am
-
Trying out a new lens early in the morning.
-
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
-
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 (http://enblend.sourceforge.net/index.htm).
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r-g4YgEACAAJ)
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=r-g4YgEACAAJ)
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
-
"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
-
Is "it" the intention or the work?
My reading is that in the first sentence "it" is the intention.