Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: tree  (Read 658 times)

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4868
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: 2426
  • 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
What! Me Worry?

Life is about a little kid driving a Mini...

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1287
  • Paris sidewalk cafe
    • DavidEckelsPhotography.com
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: 916
    • pbase galleries
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: 7788
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

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4868
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: 691
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.

Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7492
    • 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.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10126
    • 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

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org
Pages: [1]   Go Up