Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: tree  (Read 1064 times)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
tree
« on: February 24, 2013, 07:45:47 am »

Sycamore, I think, at Lyme Park in Cheshire. Comments welcome, as usual.

Jeremy
Logged

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3509
  • Editing Allowed
Re: tree
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2013, 11:05:42 am »

Do you really need that much foreground to establish the tree is atop a hill? Try a narrower vertical with about 1/2 the bottom cut off.
Logged
If it Ain't Broke, Leave it Alone; if it is Broke, Fix it; if it's a Maybe, Play With it - Who Knows

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3520
  • It's just a camera.
    • Website
Re: tree
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2013, 01:53:27 pm »

Do you really need that much foreground to establish the tree is atop a hill? Try a narrower vertical with about 1/2 the bottom cut off.
Even a "squarer" crop. The foreground is distracting to me, but I tried holding my hand up to block half the f/g and felt that would be stronger.

Bruce Cox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1077
    • flickr
Re: tree
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2013, 10:48:04 am »

I like it in B&W.

Bruce
Logged

nemo295

  • Guest
Re: tree
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2013, 11:27:11 am »

I like it in B&W.

Bruce

Me too. I like the way the B&W version enhances the form of the tree and the rendering of the light is quite nice.
Logged

francois

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13757
Re: tree
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2013, 11:28:54 am »

I would also go B&W. With the color version, I'd either darken the foreground or remove some of it.
Logged
Francois

Jeremy Roussak

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: tree
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2013, 05:07:05 am »

One of the things that keeps drawing me back to this forum is the variety of views that people are able to take of the same scene.

Your opinions on this one are starkly different from mine, which is fascinating. I'd spent some time opening up the shadows on the foreground because I liked the way the light played on the tufts of grass; and I also liked the warmth of the sunlight on the trunk of the tree, which is why I'd not gone for a b&w rendering (normally one of the first things I try).

Thank you, all. Food for thought indeed.

Jeremy
Logged

Riaan van Wyk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 812
Re: tree
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2013, 08:18:31 am »

I agree with you Jeremy, the foreground ( for me) adds some visual interest, it is not just a tree on a hill anymore, there is life all around highlighted by the sun.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: tree
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2013, 08:36:33 am »

I've been coming back to it for two days now, trying to make up my mind. My first reaction was the same as Riaan's, and I'm back there again. It's a beautiful tree, but the foreground is an important part of the picture. I'll vote for the very first version.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: tree
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2013, 08:51:28 am »

I agree with you Jeremy, the foreground ( for me) adds some visual interest, it is not just a tree on a hill anymore, there is life all around highlighted by the sun.


Agreed. And the color version is just right for me.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)
Pages: [1]   Go Up