Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: joshua tree  (Read 1243 times)

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4868
joshua tree
« on: November 01, 2012, 03:41:09 PM »

I'm not sure about this one. What do you think?

Jeremy
Logged

DougJ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2012, 04:04:15 PM »

I like it other than for the brown bit at the top left, which, if it were me, I'd remove with the content aware fill.

Ciao,

Doug

Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7788
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2012, 03:29:13 AM »

Good image with darks and lights but it's true that the top left corner distract a bit from the joshua tree (which is the subject - at least as I understand it).
Logged
Francois

LoisWakeman

  • Guest
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2012, 08:21:05 AM »

I have to disagree about removing the sunlit slope top left. The tree, that light and the grasses provide three points of interest that balance nicely. The top left adds context that helps us understand the late (or early) light.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2012, 08:37:59 PM »

I hate to disagree with Lois, who is much more perceptive than most on LuLa, but I have to agree with DougJ: I find the upper left corner distracting and I would clone it out with content-aware fill.

It's much more interesting than any shot I was able to get of Joshua trees.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 916
    • pbase galleries
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2012, 11:17:36 AM »

I am inclined to be more interested in the photo as a scene rather than a specimen, so I would keep the corner bright.  But why just the corner - why not darken all of the background if you want the specimen to "pop"?
 
Bruce
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2012, 08:01:40 PM »

I like the light on the Joshua Tree and on the grasses, and I like the amount of detail in the background, so I wouldn't darken the dark areas any more. But that upper left corner just feels irrelevant to me. But maybe it's just me.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

louoates

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 830
    • Lou Oates Photography
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2012, 08:17:44 PM »

I would fill that upper left bright spot also. There is plenty of information as to place, time of day, etc. I often clone out details that add nothing to or distract from the main image.
Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4868
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2012, 11:06:32 AM »

Interesting responses: thanks. My thoughts as I cropped the shot were the same as Lois's: three points of interest in the gloom. I had in mind something a little more than merely documentation of a specimen. I've tried removing the upper bright triangle, with the result below. I'm not sure it's an improvement.

This tree is looked at, but perhaps not seen, by many people: it's immediately next to the walkway at Keys View. I was there at dawn, on a fairly clear day, but I found the tree more interesting than the view.

Jeremy
Logged

louoates

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 830
    • Lou Oates Photography
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2012, 11:15:52 AM »

Your revise is a far more satisfying image. I do most of my landscape work for resale and whenever I can eliminate questions, spoken or unspoken, like "What's that thing at the top?" I do so.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2012, 01:16:49 PM »

The new version is exactly right, IMHO. But it's your photo, so if you really prefer the vastly inferior original, I can forgive you. (Insert multiple smileys here:...)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7788
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2012, 01:47:56 PM »

The new version is exactly right, IMHO.

Exactly!
Logged
Francois

DougJ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 46
Re: joshua tree
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2012, 03:13:43 PM »

Jeremy, I think this is now a far more satisfying image--and no one can tell whether or not it is the scene your camera captured.  Instead the unconscious eye now has an interesting path to travel: the tree, the very modest highlights in the dark background, and then ending up on the small highlighted bush at the bottom; and around, and around.

Ciao,

Doug

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up