Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: trees and grasses  (Read 2191 times)

Roy Money

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
trees and grasses
« on: March 10, 2009, 07:10:24 PM »

I have been working on trees and such.
Any feedback most appreciated.
Thanks,
Roy
Logged

lightstand

  • Guest
trees and grasses
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2009, 11:38:42 PM »

First let me say I really like them. Number two with a little photoshop to pop out the blue of the reflected sky and that image is going to be spectacular. My one humble suggestion is to start looking at the design that the negative space is making and use it to your advantage.
Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4872
trees and grasses
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2009, 04:46:24 AM »

Quote from: lightstand
First let me say I really like them. Number two with a little photoshop to pop out the blue of the reflected sky and that image is going to be spectacular. My one humble suggestion is to start looking at the design that the negative space is making and use it to your advantage.
Funny - number two is the one that appealed to me least. I like the third; the fourth is spoiled for me by the large, central, out-of-focus branch. If that had been sharp, it would have been a great shot: could you go back and try a smaller aperture, or focus blending?

A contrasty B&W version of 3 might be interesting as well.

Jeremy
Logged

LoisWakeman

  • Guest
trees and grasses
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2009, 07:51:09 AM »

Hi Roy,

Part of the art of 'treescapes' is imposing some order on the essentially chaotic, fractal nature of vegetation: the human eye tends to look for patterns and order, so some element of that is usually necessary for a harmonious composition (if that's what you are after, rather than documentary).

So, all these images are, like the curate's egg, good in parts: but I feel that none of them is totally successful for various reasons. For example, the twisted vine in #4 makes a nice focal point - but the blurred foreground branch is obtrusive and spoils the effect. #1 has a nice repetition and contrast of bark textures, but simplifying it further by having a background that doesn't draw attention would be even better.

A good start - and the more you practise, the more you will get your eye in and see everything in the frame - not just what you are interested in; we have to train our brains to see what the camera will record.
Logged

Roy Money

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
trees and grasses
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2009, 09:40:04 AM »

Quote from: LoisWakeman
Hi Roy,

Part of the art of 'treescapes' is imposing some order on the essentially chaotic, fractal nature of vegetation: the human eye tends to look for patterns and order, so some element of that is usually necessary for a harmonious composition (if that's what you are after, rather than documentary).

So, all these images are, like the curate's egg, good in parts: but I feel that none of them is totally successful for various reasons. For example, the twisted vine in #4 makes a nice focal point - but the blurred foreground branch is obtrusive and spoils the effect. #1 has a nice repetition and contrast of bark textures, but simplifying it further by having a background that doesn't draw attention would be even better.

A good start - and the more you practise, the more you will get your eye in and see everything in the frame - not just what you are interested in; we have to train our brains to see what the camera will record.

Thanks to Lois and Jeremy and lightstand for your time and thoughts, especially the point that 'we have to train our brains to see what the camera will record'.

A bow to you all.

Roy  

Roy
Logged

dalethorn

  • Guest
trees and grasses
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2009, 06:57:29 PM »

Number 3 looks really good to me, but I would remove some of the red, since the image as a whole has a red-orange light that glares rather than glows. And the extra sunlight on the right doesn't fit well IMO, so I would either crop it some, or make it look more like the detail to the left.

About 1/4 in from the right, I can visualize a narrow "path" through the trees, and if that sunlight were focused on that path instead of the group of trees to the right, that would be even better.
Logged

jule

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 738
    • http://www.juliestephenson.net
trees and grasses
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2009, 05:17:17 PM »

Thank you Roy for these images. As Lois mentioned, I think you are off to a good start. If I may offer one suggestion , it would be to consider the background more carefully. If you are going to examine textures of a subject, your background needs to be plain - either all water, or all sky, or all one colour, or all one texture - unless the division between the different elements you choose to have in the background adds to the graphical element of the image. If you are mindful of this, then there will be less distractions in the image, and the feature will then be your subject matter you are focussing on. (pun intended   )

Julie

Roy Money

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
trees and grasses
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2009, 10:08:33 PM »

Quote from: dalethorn
Number 3 looks really good to me, but I would remove some of the red, since the image as a whole has a red-orange light that glares rather than glows. And the extra sunlight on the right doesn't fit well IMO, so I would either crop it some, or make it look more like the detail to the left.

About 1/4 in from the right, I can visualize a narrow "path" through the trees, and if that sunlight were focused on that path instead of the group of trees to the right, that would be even better.

Thanks Dale.
I tried that and it certainly makes for an improvement.
Roy
Logged

Roy Money

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
trees and grasses
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2009, 10:10:49 PM »

Quote from: jule
Thank you Roy for these images. As Lois mentioned, I think you are off to a good start. If I may offer one suggestion , it would be to consider the background more carefully. If you are going to examine textures of a subject, your background needs to be plain - either all water, or all sky, or all one colour, or all one texture - unless the division between the different elements you choose to have in the background adds to the graphical element of the image. If you are mindful of this, then there will be less distractions in the image, and the feature will then be your subject matter you are focussing on. (pun intended   )

Julie
And thank you Julie for the pointer.  It is all so easy to get caught up in the resonance of certain elements without taking in all of them.

Roy
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up