Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on November 29, 2011, 06:13:29 pm

Title: attack tree
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on November 29, 2011, 06:13:29 pm
Does this work? I can't work out whether I like it or not. B&W, colour, no matter?

Jeremy
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: AndrewKulin on November 29, 2011, 06:42:33 pm
I think the colour is better.  The kangaroo-like tree on the attack (that's what it looks like to me) stands out more-so in the colour version.
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: RSL on November 29, 2011, 07:20:32 pm
Neat shot, Jeremy. To me the B&W is far superior, but with some mid-tones in there -- like this. The color detracts from the geometry.
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 29, 2011, 08:38:46 pm
I'm with Russ on this one, but with perhaps a bit less darkening.

Eric
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Rob C on November 30, 2011, 03:44:37 am
Nope, in my humble etc. the colour shot has better separation between mantis and background.

Of course, breaking the 'landscape' mantra of infinite depth of field and opting for a wider aperture would have given you the best of both worlds: a very clearly delineated main subject and also the suggestion of location... But then, you have to be a people shooter to care about such esoteric fine detail... ;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: RSL on November 30, 2011, 07:36:56 am
I'm with Russ on this one, but with perhaps a bit less darkening.

Yeah, I always should remember that for some reason all the tones drop when I post on LuLa. Sometimes I remember and boost the gamma before I put the stuff up, but often I don't. I agree with Eric about the darkening.
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: fike on November 30, 2011, 09:21:18 am
This is a nice "almost" shot.  Sorry to be blunt, but the lack of separation between the interesting attack tree and its background--particularly the red rock mound/tower in the background--detracts from a clear image subject.  I am not sure how fast a lens you had, but perhaps a very wide aperture and/or a long focal length taken from farther away would help to blur the distractions in the background.
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 30, 2011, 10:16:06 am
Framing and/or cropping too tight... TMI (too much information) overall... Lack of main center of interest... Harsh light... Overlapping elements... None of which can possibly be addressed by a b&w conversion.

The most interesting part seems to be the "mantis" tree. What one could have done, given the harsh late-morning light, is to explore the interplay with its shadow by choosing a completely different viewpoint, the one which would isolate them from the rest. Or perhaps get dirty, lie down on the ground, and capture it against the sky with a polarizer.

With a different viewpoint, both Rob's and Marc's suggestion (shallow DOF, either by f/stop or telephoto) might work too. As an aside, I never thought I would agree with Rob on matters of landscape  ;) :)

Alternatively, an extreme wide-angle lens might have helped to separate the competing visual elements as well.

I do understand one thing though: how easy it is to be overwhelmed by the explosion of visual information in places as grand as the Grand Canyon. Everything around us is new to us and extremely interesting, hence the first impulse to include it all in one shot. Also, given the constraints of travel with friends and family or tour schedule, we more often than not can not control the time of day nor the duration of stay in a particular spot. Being there, done that (i.e., committed the same mistakes).
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Rob C on November 30, 2011, 10:50:22 am

With a different viewpoint, both Rob's and Marc's suggestion (shallow DOF, either by f/stop or telephoto) might work too. As an aside, I never thought I would agree with Rob on matters of landscape  ;) :)



You see, Slobodan, some of us wrinklies know a thing or two; trouble is, never can quite fathom from whence came the wrinkles!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 01, 2011, 03:41:10 am
Thanks, all. Excessive depth of field was what was disturbing me. It's obvious when it's pointed out, of course. I could try fiddling with it in PS, adding lens blur and so on, but I'm not sure it's a good enough shot to be worth the trouble.

Jeremy
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: luxborealis on December 02, 2011, 09:04:42 am
Did you happen to shoot the same scene from a much lower camera angle - placing the "combatants" against the sky? That would clean up the background, allow for the DoF you need and, perhaps, introduce some "cloud-sky drama" particularly in B&W with a dark sky and bright trees.
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: RSL on December 02, 2011, 11:01:23 am
Actually, the canyon behind is an important part of the picture, and there have been so many pictures of dead trees against the sky that it's become a boring cliche. Here's an example of what you can do in Photoshop with lens blur. I didn't have time to do it right. It probably would take a couple hours to get the selection exactly right and the lens blur settings exactly right, but it could be done, assuming you don't have a life.
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Rob C on December 02, 2011, 01:53:00 pm
Actually, the canyon behind is an important part of the picture, and there have been so many pictures of dead trees against the sky that it's become a boring cliche. Here's an example of what you can do in Photoshop with lens blur. I didn't have time to do it right. It probably would take a couple hours to get the selection exactly right and the lens blur settings exactly right, but it could be done, assuming you don't have a life.



Q.E.D.

Rob C
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 04, 2011, 01:53:15 pm
Actually, the canyon behind is an important part of the picture, and there have been so many pictures of dead trees against the sky that it's become a boring cliche. Here's an example of what you can do in Photoshop with lens blur. I didn't have time to do it right. It probably would take a couple hours to get the selection exactly right and the lens blur settings exactly right, but it could be done, assuming you don't have a life.
That's very good, Russ. There are going, I suspect, to be a few days around Christmas when I shall feel an intense need to be somewhere the other people in my house are not, so I might give it a try then.

Rob, I think it's a little unfair to imply that all landscape photographers don't understand how useful a shallow depth of field can be, just because the evidence from this shot is that I don't!

Slobodan, your last paragraph has the situation to a T.

Jeremy
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Rob C on December 05, 2011, 04:08:52 am
"Rob, I think it's a little unfair to imply that all landscape photographers don't understand how useful a shallow depth of field can be, just because the evidence from this shot is that I don't!"


Hi Jeremy

No, I'm not saying that all landscape shooters are unaware of dof, quite the opposite, in fact; what I believe is that pretty well every landscape image that I see published has this 'f64 or nothing' look to it.

I'm fairly sure that when they do anything other than landscape, these same shooters are perfectly aware of the dof techniques they can employ to better their pics, but that they are educated to think within an infinite dof paradigm whenever they get into landscape mode. Even without viewing the images, you can pick up the same vibe from reading the questions/concerns that are raised here about lens performance stopped down, the fears of getting something less than as sharp as it might be; it's all part of the same thing, an indoctrination that's awfully hard to override once it sets in. That's a shame, really, because as Russ showed with his manipulation, things can be made very much more intersting in landscape too, by showing the main subject and only suggesting the rest as some indicator of ambience. After all, it's usually the main subject that catches the snapper's eye in the first place, unless it really is the great sweeping landscape that is the subject... or the no subject, if you like.

?

Rob C

Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 10, 2011, 11:51:40 am
Well, I had some time to spare so I sat down and spent a while making a fine selection in PS. As I did it, I repeated to myself, "this is your penance for having failed to use the correct aperture in the first place".

This is the result. Thoughts?

Jeremy
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on December 10, 2011, 02:22:35 pm
Much better than the first try.

Whenever I make a mistake in the field, I hate spending the time and effort fixing it in PS. But I think you've done it well here.

Eric
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Rob C on December 10, 2011, 04:38:45 pm
Well, I had some time to spare so I sat down and spent a while making a fine selection in PS. As I did it, I repeated to myself, "this is your penance for having failed to use the correct aperture in the first place".

This is the result. Thoughts?

Jeremy



Yes, it works far better like that, in my view; well worth remembering!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: RSL on December 11, 2011, 06:25:26 am
Much better, Jeremy. Have you tried it in B&W?
Title: Re: attack tree
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 11, 2011, 09:55:58 am
Much better, Jeremy. Have you tried it in B&W?
I have but for once I'm not sure I prefer it. I liked the colour in the original and I think I was using b&w as an attempt to produce contrast and so to compensate for the excessive depth of field. Now I've "solved" that problem, I don't really feel the need any more.

You'll notice that I've also used a much looser crop; I was over-cropping, as Slobodan pointed out, for the same reason. I think this version allows the upper branches of the right-hand tree to make it seem to lean away from the attack, which fits in with what I fondly imagine to be the sense of the image.

Anyway, here's my effort. Feel free to improve it!

Jeremy