Capturing breeze by moonlight...

[Patricia Sheley]

Impressions please...

[jasonrandolph]

First off, welcome!  I like seeing new members' work.  I hope you continue to post here.

Regarding your image, I like the overall composition.  I would probably crop out the two trees on the left, because they distract from the three trees that seems to be the main center of interest.  This would also crop out the sun, which isn't adding anything to the image.  

Before I comment further, I have to point out that I'm looking at the image on an uncalibrated monitor at work, so if this is why it appears this way, I apologize.  I would like to see more light in the foreground.  It seems  that you wanted detail there (and not just a silhouette shot), but it's just too dark to see much.  I'm not usually an advocate of HDR, but it may have worked here to get some detail into the tree trunks and the foreground foliage.  I do like the motion in the leaves that you captured, and the colors in the sky and the trees.

[Patricia Sheley]

First off, welcome!  I like seeing new members' work.  I hope you continue to post here.

Regarding your image, I like the overall composition.  I would probably crop out the two trees on the left, because they distract from the three trees that seems to be the main center of interest.  This would also crop out the sun, which isn't adding anything to the image.  

Before I comment further, I have to point out that I'm looking at the image on an uncalibrated monitor at work, so if this is why it appears this way, I apologize.  I would like to see more light in the foreground.  It seems  that you wanted detail there (and not just a silhouette shot), but it's just too dark to see much.  I'm not usually an advocate of HDR, but it may have worked here to get some detail into the tree trunks and the foreground foliage.  I do like the motion in the leaves that you captured, and the colors in the sky and the trees.

Please keep in mind that this is moonlight and an attempt to capture the ocean breezes in the tops of the trees while at the same time picking up the beautiful moonlight on the forest floor....I worked right and left in the location over several hours beginning pre-moonrise and then ahd to stop here as moon had become too high (as in noontime hours) to capture t he effect intended. These were long exposures at lowest ISO and interestingly just noticed in my notes on the image that I was on the phone with Tim Wolcott while the timer was working along on this capture.

Thank you for the benefit of your initial perception as it helps my future pre-visioning time. Patricia

[RSL]

Patricia, Welcome. It's a good try, but there's no way to tell the difference between sunlight and moonlight. Practically since the beginning of photography people have been making moonlight pictures during daylight by simply under-exposing. I don't agree with Jason about the cropping. (He probably knew I'd say that.) I think the composition is fine just the way it is, but there seems to have been enough breeze to soften the tops of the close-in trees during your 30 second exposure. One of the advantages of doing moonlight during daylight is that you can up the shutter speed an avoid this problem.

[jule]

Welcome and thanks Patricia. I would liek to make a comment about emotional attachment to an image. I have learnt that one of the most important skills I can develop in an honest appraisal of my own images is emotional detachment from them. This then allows me to look at the image with fresh eyes, and ONLY see what is presented in front of me.

To be brutally honest, your image just looks like it could have been taken ion a windy morning or afternoon, and contrary to your title, and detailed explanation of the rigours you went through to capture the image, it does not convey to me anything at all about 'moonlight in the forest". I think your emotional attachment to your idea, vision and process has impeded you actually seeing your image for exactly what it is.

Because light is just light - it doesn't matter whether an image is taken at night or in the day. You can let a lot of light in quickly, or you can let  a little bit of light in for longer. You need more visual cues or elements to indicate that it is in the moonlight.

That's what its' all about - trying to develop more effective ways to express your idea; which is often a huge challenge, but the fun for me.

Julie

[Patricia Sheley]

Welcome and thanks Patricia. I would liek to make a comment about emotional attachment to an image

That's what its' all about - trying to develop more effective ways to express your idea; which is often a huge challenge, but the fun for me.

Julie

very enlightening...thank you to all...always looking to widen and exercise perception....much appreciated. P.

[Pete JF]

I think  you've done something nice here. The thing about moonlight is that most experienced photographers will recognize moonlight by the blurring and the unmistakable quality of a long exposure..nice how the camera starts to see into the shadows. Those who dont recognise this//who cares?

To me, the blurring makes the picture...there is a nice flurry going on here and i do recognize it as a breeze. After downloading the image and looking at it here i think you've got plenty of foreground detail to work with. If everything was sharp here this would be just another picture of the woods...

If I had to say anything i would say that you might lose a bit of the bottom of this long rectangle..make it more solid and crop off some of the bottom..a fatter rectangle always works better on verticals..I never use the full frame when composing verticals unless it's absolutely necessary.

I would call this successful for the most part.  love the light filtering through to the floor and the blurring of the trees is a nice counter, cool.

[Patricia Sheley]

I think  you've done something nice here. The thing about moonlight is that most experienced photographers will recognize moonlight by the blurring and the unmistakable quality of a long exposure..nice how the camera starts to see into the shadows. Those who dont recognise this//who cares?

To me, the blurring makes the picture...there is a nice flurry going on here and i do recognize it as a breeze. After downloading the image and looking at it here i think you've got plenty of foreground detail to work with. If everything was sharp here this would be just another picture of the woods...

If I had to say anything i would say that you might lose a bit of the bottom of this long rectangle..make it more solid and crop off some of the bottom..a fatter rectangle always works better on verticals..I never use the full frame when composing verticals unless it's absolutely necessary.

I would call this successful for the most part.  love the light filtering through to the floor and the blurring of the trees is a nice counter, cool.

Pete, you can't know how much your comments restore my faith...I have quietly spent time on the sidelines here at LL, as the articles and discussions almost always are able to point me to info sources I need at the time... In the case of this shot it was something that had never occurred to me that some felt a true moonlight paint with light could have been as easily created at 10 am with underexposure. I went to my archives of night shooting and tried to see how a full daylight dome, whether underexposed or not could have made for the same effect without spreading a mile of black muslin in the treetops..and then of course the sky's work of defining the breeze would have been lost.

The cropping is something I have really started to look at a lot lately in these full frame verticals, and this one in particular seemed just too off in weight top to bottom. Thankyou for your eye on that and your contribution to my thought process on this and other similars. I am actually giving room to  the thought that though I was trained to see upside down in my speed graphic days and completely fill the frame with my vision , I need to consider shooting some of these with a bit of wiggle room with post crop for balance in mind...I spend so much time looking all the way to the edge when composing, that I think this will add something to that study before I release that shutter...you've given me a valuable piece to work with..Thank you,  Patricia

[Pete JF]

Patricia,

In your speed graphic days you were probably composing with a 4x5 rectangle...much more solid and stout...natural stature-horizontal or vertical. The proportions of most dslr's give you a long rectangle that, IMO, doesn't work well as a vertical in most cases...something uncomfortable about it.

I still shoot 4x5 sheet film and for me it's proportions are much more comfy. I tend to to see that way even when Im shooting digi dslr.

:  )

[John R]

I can certainly appreciate and relate to what you were trying to accomplish. I have many failed moonshots. A few good ones in my slide collection, somewhere! Most night scenes have a blue cast (probably the film) and yours seems be neutral and somewhat unsaturated. That could be the movement of the leaves. But I think the subtle lighting filtering through the trees needs to be looked at in large format. I do find two things a little disturbing. One is the light on the middle left side, which I presume is the moon? It unduly draws attention to itself. The second is the white line in the background of the trees which appears to be a building of some kind. I don't think in images like these, where the emphasis is on moonlight and trees, this should be in in your photo.

JMR

[jasonrandolph]

For the record, Russ, I knew.  

[RSL]

For the record, Russ, I knew.  

Well, Tomorrow I'll put up another cropped picture. You'll be amazed!

[JeffKohn]

I think  you've done something nice here. The thing about moonlight is that most experienced photographers will recognize moonlight by the blurring and the unmistakable quality of a long exposure..nice how the camera starts to see into the shadows. Those who dont recognise this//who cares?

To me, the blurring makes the picture...there is a nice flurry going on here and i do recognize it as a breeze. After downloading the image and looking at it here i think you've got plenty of foreground detail to work with. If everything was sharp here this would be just another picture of the woods...

If I had to say anything i would say that you might lose a bit of the bottom of this long rectangle..make it more solid and crop off some of the bottom..a fatter rectangle always works better on verticals..I never use the full frame when composing verticals unless it's absolutely necessary.

I would call this successful for the most part.  love the light filtering through to the floor and the blurring of the trees is a nice counter, cool.

I pretty much agree with this. I like the concept, athough I wonder if B/W might work any better; hard to say. But I definitely agree that cropping from the bottom would be an improvment. Not only would it change the compositional balance for the better, but I also think it would enhance the impression of the trees looming overhead. I've found that more often than not I prefer 5:4 for vertical images, even though I tend to favor 3:2 for horizontals. 3:2 verticals are just a little too skinny, and they will often feel cramped even if they're not really.