evening tree

[Jeremy Roussak]

Thoughts?

Jeremy

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Certainly some nice colours in there and nice soft light and even though the shadow at the bottom of the frame reflects the shape of the hill, I still feel as though there is something more you could have done with the composition, which without being there I am not sure what, but perhaps it looks a bit hurried somehow or a grab shot.

So yes, composition is really good, placement of objects within the frame, really good, lighting really good, but yet....

Dave

[Yvan Bedard]

Hi Jeremy,

You have great colors, light and subject. I agree with Dave that probably that more could be done. What strikes me immediatly is the big difference between the thumbmail view and the enlarged view. The thumbnail shows primarily a landscape including a tree while the enlarged view shows a tree as the prme interesting element. This tells me that there is a need to make the tree stand more from the background. (N.B. English isn't my native language, so pardon me if I'm not clear or appear rude when I write as it is never intended that way).

IMHO, I feel it is possible to make sure there in only one topic in this picture. Presently the tree fights with land in the background for viewer's attention because they have the same colors and lighting. I see two potential solutions to this: (1) you may have other photographs taken minutes before or after where most of the land behind the tree is in the shadow like the mountain (so the tree would stand out from the land as well as it does from the mountain) or (2) you add some shadow on the land behind the tree. This way, the eye would be immediately attracted by the bright tree which would contrast more from its background as it does now.

One other thing I would try would be to crop the image to remove most of the sky and to make the composition almost panoramic.

Just my two cents ;-)

Yvan

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Simple: the tree is buried under the weight of the mountain. A few steps to the right, and then a few steps forward, would put both into a much more dynamic relationship.

[RSL]

Nice try, but it didn't work, Jeremy. The colors in the tree are blending with the colors in the terrain. You want them to clash, not blend. Fascinating scene, though. Slobodan's got the right idea, but I think you'd have practically to lie down under the tree in order to get the kind of clash with the hill and the sky that would make the tree stand out.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Interesting responses. Sadly, I can't claim the composition is the result of a quick grab: I used a tripod and set it up quite carefully. It is as I envisaged it, with the curve of the top of the tree echoing the curve of the hill in the distance, but it clearly doesn't work for you all. I thought the tree would stand out more. Slobodan sees as a flaw just what I, in my mind, saw as its strength.

I have more from that day and evening; I'm still working through them.

Jeremy

[degrub]

Maybe colour is not helping ?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Interesting responses. Sadly, I can't claim the composition is the result of a quick grab: I used a tripod and set it up quite carefully. It is as I envisaged it, with the curve of the top of the tree echoing the curve of the hill in the distance, but it clearly doesn't work for you all. I thought the tree would stand out more. Slobodan sees as a flaw just what I, in my mind, saw as its strength...

Fair enough. In that case, try throwing the mountain into a silhouette (by locally decreasing Shadows), so that the tree does stand out, while retaining "the curve." 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Fair enough. In that case, try throwing the mountain into a silhouette (by locally decreasing Shadows), so that the tree does stand out, while retaining "the curve."

Something like this, you mean?

Jeremy

[john beardsworth]

Maybe a familiar comment, Jeremy, but might there be too much sky? Does it compete with the tree/hilltop combination and make one's eye roll along the shape of the hill, not pass down towards the tree?

John

[Jeremy Roussak]

Maybe a familiar comment, Jeremy, but might there be too much sky? Does it compete with the tree/hilltop combination and make one's eye roll along the shape of the hill, not pass down towards the tree?

Interesting thought.

Jeremy

[RSL]

Too much sky. Too little sky. It doesn't matter. The tree blends with the terrain. You can try B&W. The tree still blends with the terrain. So it is, and so it always will be.

[MattBurt]

I have to agree with the compositional critiques. When I have a foreground object like that tree I try to be sure to make it break the horizon to make a visual bridge between all the layers as well as making the tree stand out from the background.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Something like this, you mean?

Jeremy

Yes I definitely think this version is headed in the right direction.

Too much sky. Too little sky. It doesn't matter. The tree blends with the terrain. You can try B&W. The tree still blends with the terrain. So it is, and so it always will be.

You know Russ, I used to tell my workshop people in words something similar to this, that it isn't the object that you have chosen to photograph that is the most important thing, it's the light on the object that is the most important thing.

Dave

[RSL]

Exactly, Dave. It's "photo" "graphy." Photos, and graphicos -- light and writing, i.e. light writing. Photographers sometimes forget that. But light is what makes the picture.