Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Dmullins on February 02, 2012, 05:42:29 pm

Title: B&W Tree
Post by: Dmullins on February 02, 2012, 05:42:29 pm
Hello everyone, this is my first post on the forums.  For starters, my name is Daniel.  I have been taking photos for the last couple of years, however, it has been in the last year that I have begun to really have a passion for it.  I hope to one day be considered a master, but I still have much to learn.  I normally only do color work, so B&W is still very new to me.  In the future I will post some of my color work, but for now I would like some advice on this B&W of a lone tree.  Thank you for any advice, critiques, praise, or harsh truths that you can bestow.

Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Onslow on February 02, 2012, 06:22:45 pm
Hi Daniel,

Congratulations on your first post. This is my first critique here as well...

I have the impression of haloing around the tree. I don't know what processing was applied so can't comment further but, that's what I see.

It seems bottom heavy as well. I think perhaps I would have had slightly lower camera and more foreground so that where the trunk emerges from the soil, it wouldn't be so near the bottom edge.

Having said that, I quite like it overall. It gives me a sense of sparseness which I like...

Cheers

Onslow
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: wolfnowl on February 03, 2012, 02:27:41 am
Hi There, and welcome to the list.  Love the tree, don't like the square crop.  The tree's too hemmed in; needs some room to breathe.

Mike.
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Rob C on February 03, 2012, 04:40:50 am
Hi There, and welcome to the list.  Love the tree, don't like the square crop.  The tree's too hemmed in; needs some room to breathe.

Mike.



You think that's hemmed in, Mike? Just wait until it finds itself in a matchbox!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Dmullins on February 03, 2012, 05:44:51 am
Thanks for reply's, here is a revision.

Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Onslow on February 03, 2012, 05:58:37 am
Ahhh, that's much nicer to my eyes. The crop now gives the tree room..... Still not sure about the processing but wow, just the crop change has radically altered this for me...

Congratulations....

Cheers

Onslow
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: sdwilsonsct on February 03, 2012, 08:29:40 am
Yeah: full-sized gives it context. Much better.
Scott
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: RSL on February 03, 2012, 08:45:15 am
Not only does it give us context, it gives us that little stunted tree off to the right and off in the distance. I'd say that little tree is an important part of the composition, as are the spikes of grass in the foreground. Good shot, Daniel, and welcome aboard.
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Fips on February 03, 2012, 09:02:23 am
I like the less cropped version a lot more, too. What one could do additionally is to get rid of the green hues in the sky. That doesn't look right to me.
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: jalcocer on February 03, 2012, 09:16:57 am
Nice shot, works great in b&w, and I like better the less cropped version also
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Rob C on February 03, 2012, 09:29:07 am
Not only does it give us context, it gives us that little stunted tree off to the right and off in the distance. I'd say that little tree is an important part of the composition, as are the spikes of grass in the foreground. Good shot, Daniel, and welcome aboard.


Tend to agree, but the pale background to the main body of the principal tree is not attractive to me. It's just one of those unfortunate situations where tones are too close in nature, and faking separation hasn't worked convincingly. It was something you rapidly discovered for yourself shooting outdoor fashion in black/white!

But the shot displays a nice eye for pictures. No matchboxes this time!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 03, 2012, 09:40:52 am
I agree with the new version and the addition of the two small trees. It's much better.
Title: Re: B&W Tree
Post by: wolfnowl on February 04, 2012, 02:02:39 pm
+1

Mike.