Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: marvpelkey on December 01, 2012, 09:22:41 pm

Title: Lone Sentry
Post by: marvpelkey on December 01, 2012, 09:22:41 pm
Spent about 2 weeks coming back to this tree almost every other day, and captured it in various kinds of weather and light., some more dramatic than this but, of all, this seemed to speak to me the most. Sadly, the last day I visited, the tree was gone, either by natural forces or, more likely, by a swimmer or boater goofing around.

Marv
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: WalterEG on December 01, 2012, 09:25:11 pm
Simply glorious - you have received a great blessing in being lead to this scene.

I'll leave it to others to suggest crops and so forth.  For me it is a cracker.

Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: marvpelkey on December 01, 2012, 09:39:55 pm
Walter, thanks for your comments.

Funny enough, I had been to this lake (Alouette, in southwest BC) a million times (I mean almost every weekend for years) taking photos, but had never rounded a particular bend in the shoreline. For some reason, this day I was pulled to this location for no apparent reason. It was only when I rounded the corner that I saw this tree.

As to cropping etc., I only had a single lens (100mm Zeiss) in my arsenal so all photos were taken with this focal length and, due to shoreline and trees, I couldn't do too much moving about.

Marv
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Tony Jay on December 01, 2012, 10:08:14 pm
Maybe you could experiment with different crops.
Nonetheless this is a glorious study of those pastel hues with the tree as the centrepiece.
This is worth spending lots of time on.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 01, 2012, 11:21:57 pm
I'm willing to say Don't crop! It's very fine just as it is.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 01, 2012, 11:45:50 pm
Oh... lovely!
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: wolfnowl on December 02, 2012, 02:02:40 am
I'm willing to say Don't crop! It's very fine just as it is.


Yup.

Mike.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 02, 2012, 04:39:03 am
I'm willing to say Don't crop! It's very fine just as it is.


I agree. Really good.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Chairman Bill on December 02, 2012, 04:43:50 am
Superb
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: RSL on December 02, 2012, 05:58:10 am
+1. Don't even think of cropping.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: stamper on December 02, 2012, 06:47:51 am
+1. Don't even think of cropping.

Adding is what I would do....if it was possible. A very nice image with beautiful tones, but alas it looks unbalanced imo. The left hand side needs adding to, to balance out the right hand side. I don't mean symmetrical. If you had taken two images as part of a panorama and stitched. That is assuming there is something in the scene that can be included? :)
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Jim Pascoe on December 02, 2012, 07:25:07 am
My natural tendency if it were mine would be to loose a bit off the bottom - but in all honesty I don't care.  The picture is so great I wouldn't really mind what shape it was - it is all about the wonderful atmosphere and feeling invoked.  Brilliant.

Jim
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: RSL on December 02, 2012, 11:50:05 am
With the dark trees on the left gone the whole picture would become out of balance graphically. Why is it that every time recent LuLa joiners see a good picture they want to start snipping here and whacking there? Sometimes even the old-timers, who ought to know better, do it. It's some kind of disease.

Let me quote HCB again: "If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there."

This picture most emphatically is not "feebly composed," and there's no crop that can improve it. HCB wasn't always right, but he's very right with respect to this picture.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Chris Calohan on December 02, 2012, 12:13:22 pm
+10 for the image as it has been posted. I just like it like it is. As to whomever made the tree disappear, 100 lashes with a 36 exposure reel of wet Tri-X.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: francois on December 02, 2012, 12:27:49 pm
Perfect capture of an ideal landscape…

Bravo…
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 02, 2012, 12:39:24 pm
...you're an idiot...

Booooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Bruce Cox on December 02, 2012, 12:50:30 pm
It's your image, do what you like. Personally, I find the dark trees on the left a little distracting and they diminish the graphic impact of the lone tree.

I would try cropping them out, but keeping the same overall aspect ratio by also trimming a little off the bottom and right.
[/quot

The virtue of your correct opinion is sufficient commentary on your appoints.

Bruce
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: RSL on December 02, 2012, 01:31:18 pm
Oh Oh! It's Dalethorn back under a pseudonym.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Tim Gray on December 02, 2012, 02:00:52 pm
The image is exceptional. Having said that, regardless of how, or even if, the LHS is addressed, the overall image would be better without the high contrast/weight that's there now.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: michael on December 02, 2012, 02:19:05 pm
Mr. Frost... Inappropriate behavior.

Desist or be gone.

Michael
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 02, 2012, 02:27:41 pm
And you're his lap dog, Slobie. Jen was right.

I do not remember Jen ever implicating me in anything, let alone "Russ' kennel."

If, however, you meant to imply that anyone who disagrees with your primitive debate style belongs there... then you are probably right. Anyone who cares to pay attention to such things would have noticed that Russ and I have a fair share of disagreements, both politically and photographically, yet never stooped so low to call each other names.

I understand that it takes a bit of intelligence, civility and sense of humor to disagree with someone without resorting to primitivism, thus I sympathize with your struggle.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Dale Villeponteaux on December 02, 2012, 03:05:11 pm
Worth hanging.  I would like to see the original capture.  It would help me to understand the postprocessing
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 02, 2012, 04:39:48 pm
I disagree, with both you and M. Cartier-Bresson. And you're an idiot if you conflate length of membership on this forum with photographic experience. It doesn't begin or end with LuLa.

Bow down, chaps. We are honoured to be in the presence of a Master. Let us be silent and heed his Words of Wisdom.

More sensibly, remove the trees from the left and you ruin the photo. I disagree with his dogmatism as regards cropping, but on this occasion, Russ is right.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Bruce Cox on December 02, 2012, 05:34:31 pm
The image is exceptional. Having said that, regardless of how, or even if, the LHS is addressed, the overall image would be better without the high contrast/weight that's there now.

I don't know what LHS refers to, but I agree, I think, about the "high contrast".  After photoshopping the image into black and white, I like the trees on the left that way.  I was right when I didn't like them in color, so I have now been right on both sides of this argument.

Bruce
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Ed B on December 02, 2012, 06:16:23 pm
I don't know what LHS refers to....

Left hand side, I think. The trees on the left don't bother me as much in b&w but they are a little distracting in color. Either way, great image.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: marvpelkey on December 02, 2012, 06:47:50 pm
Thanks all for the comments, critiques and suggestions.

In RAW, this image was rather flat (and quite blue) and I must admit I struggled mightily and spent a lot of time trying to balance the tones and the struggle between too flat and too contrasty. In fact, by the time I reached the current version, I must of had at least 7 iterations saved, for comparison, done in three different conversion programs. Some were more contrasty while others were less. I finally settled on this version. As to the cropping, or not, while I have no philosophical issue with cropping an image if required, my reasons were twofold for not cropping - I wanted to have as much space around the tree to "enhance" the feeling of "lone", the other is, after spending a small fortune on my D3X with a, then, large real estate sensor, I cringe every time I contemplate reducing that acreage. In closing, this is one of those images that I will probably re-visit and re-process forever and never be completely happy with the result.

Marv
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 02, 2012, 08:00:09 pm
You got it just right, IMHO.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: stamper on December 03, 2012, 04:13:06 am
Quote Russ

it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there."

Unquote

Russ this is something that you like to quote regularly. The problem I have with it is that in the final print - or upload to the internet - nobody knows what .....the integrity of vision.....was? Only the photographer knows that. The vision, if he/she had one, was possibly/probably compromised by the aspect ratio of the camera lens? This means that in a lot of instances cropping to get back that vision is necessary? This is what I find most of the time. Not cropping and leaving in superfluous objects and dead space means criticism is heaped upon your head if the final print/upload is shown to someone. As stated the vision is only known to the photographer and isn't known to the viewer. Personally I think there is an art in cropping and getting it "right" can make an image. :) 
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: RobbieV on December 03, 2012, 11:30:50 am
I would have a hard time keeping the processing as delicate as you have with this. It's a beautiful image and I wouldn't change a thing.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 03, 2012, 11:46:02 am
At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, may I suggest flipping the image?

I think it would diminish the "weight" the left-had side trees (in the original image) have, while still keeping them in the image as a counter balance for the much bigger RHS. It would also provide a nice lead-in diagonal, leading straight to the main point of interest. Lower-left-to-upper-right diagonals typically imply movement into the image, while upper-left-to-lower-right diagonals imply movement out of the image
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Didymus on December 03, 2012, 01:47:52 pm
Beautiful image.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 03, 2012, 02:28:19 pm
At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, may I suggest flipping the image?

I usually agree with your suggestions, Slobodan, but for some reason I strongly dislike this one. Just me, perhaps.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on December 03, 2012, 03:54:46 pm
Excellent shot, very atmospheric and beautiful.

I wish it was mine.

Dave
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: marvpelkey on December 03, 2012, 04:04:39 pm
Slobodan,

Curious, I reversed the image as you suggested and looked at it big on my computer. Perhaps if I had no familiarity to the place photographed, I may tend to agree with you but, because I have visited this place a gazillion times, I find the reversed image very weird and my connection to the place makes it difficult to look at the reversed image with a dispassionate calculating eye. Sort of like taking the typical photo of the leaning tower and showing a reversed image to a local, I suppose.

Marv
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 03, 2012, 04:10:05 pm
Marv, can't argue with that. Geographical fidelity is always a major consideration with image flipping, especially for those in the know, like yourself or your local market.

Can't argue with Jeremy either, as it is a matter of personal preference.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on December 03, 2012, 07:17:06 pm
At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, may I suggest flipping the image?

Sorry Slobodan, but that I really don't get, I can understand and fully agree with cropping when the image needs it, rotating macros and abstracts, not a problem, but flipping landscapes? No flipping way  ::)

Dave

Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: 32BT on December 05, 2012, 04:02:37 am
Congratulations on a fine image. Very nice capture and a job well done revisiting the scene.

I am however also in the camp of readjusting crop. First of all, I am not diametrically opposed to cropping since I am a proponent of freedom-of-speech, and if a crop tells a better story, then a crop tells a better story. Whether you have seen this crop prior to capture is largely irrelevant.

Previsualising a crop is more about determining the relevant elements in a picture. Which means it may be useful to snap a slightly larger picture to be able to weight the elements in post-processing.

In this case for example a useful argument can be had over the LHS element. For one, it contributes to the "realism", leaving it out makes the image tend towards a digital manipulated composed image, as if the tree was pasted in. However, in the current crop it also distracts from the subject. Had you captured a slightly larger crop with more of those trees, you could always decide in post how much is necessary to tell the story.

Considering the elements I would personally opt for something along the line of the attached crop, which to me results in a better overall balance and emphasis, including the flow drawn by the mist. I would certainly keep the colors, but would consider doing something with the sky. An ever so slight graduated color perhaps. I would further rotate the image to level the waterline.
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: 32BT on December 05, 2012, 04:06:51 am
Lower-left-to-upper-right diagonals typically imply movement into the image, while upper-left-to-lower-right diagonals imply movement out of the image

Well, even if this were true, would it perhaps be useful to the image to preserve the original lines in order to emphasize the "loneliness"? Since if we are drawn toward the subject it will be more about wanting to be at that spot, as opposed to being repelled?
Title: Re: Lone Sentry
Post by: marvpelkey on December 07, 2012, 07:57:36 pm
OPGR,

Thanks for the comments and the time taken to offer some suggestions.

As to the crop, at first glance it looks promising. I will give it a try on the original and put it full size on my monitor to get a better feel.

Regarding the colours, the RAW was, except for a whole lot of blue, very bland and I had to bump it up considerably in the orange/yellows to even get it to what it is.

As I always do, I used a bubble level during capture and it seems pretty level to my eye. You may have noticed, or not, the line of highlighted water is not an indication of level as, if you look closely, the horizon is a bit above that (look at the point of the land on the left and the more rounded points on the two on either side of the passageway).

Marv