[JMitchell]

I thought this would be a good candidate for mono, and I spent a fair bit of time playing to get it right, starting again several times, but I think I've gotten the most out of it, and have made a nice print

I would really appreciate your comments on this one, as I really like it, but would be interested to hear (if such is the case) why others don't. I think one of the main complaints will be the comp, but we'll see....




TFL


Jack(

[aboekman]

Jack,

I really do like this photograph. I think the subject is very interesting, the lighting is nice, and the conversion is excellent. I really like the low vantage point among the grasses. Fantastic work. I would print this one too.

A few other thoughts. I feel as though the subject would be stronger if it didn't seem to compete and get a lost a bit with the forested background. It might look very striking with a more simple background of field and sky such as if you were standing to the right shooting toward the left. I was also just a touch distracted by the burned out sky on the RHS as well as by little bits of pure white on the twisted trunk. Overall I really find it a pleasing piece.

-Andrew

[Dabhand16]

Good points raised there Jack, and the tree is a bit central too, but I'll bet that you were very limited in the angle you had.

Putting the tree more to the LHS would have brought more of that bright sky into shot, and moving your VP to the RHS would not only isolate the tree from the BG (good), but it would also make most of the texture of the trunk invisible because it would be lit directly. (Bad).

Solution - revisit at different time to get light at better angle.

Overall a nice shot and conversion though.

[JMitchell]

Thanks for your comments. I absolutely agree with them, although I can offer some information in my defense I was lying on the ground, so the low viewpoint you mentioned certainly stands, but as per the trees behind, I tried moving so that there was a clear background, but you actually got city behind if I went right, and more tree if I went left. I tried to find the spot where there was the least interferance, but it remaisn a little distracting.
The light area isn't blown out, I made sure of that, but perhaps it is too light, I did wonder....I agree about the trunk, the midday sun (or so) was right on it, so I had to compromise small amounts of very bright highlights (still not blown in full vers) for tone and depth.


Thanks again for your comment


[EDIT: Missed Graham's comments, yup you're spot on about the dilemmas I had. Good deduction Mr Holmes , thanks for the comments! ]

[Angela]

You know, it might have worked just as well with a city backdrop Jack, giving the shot a bit of a contrast.

[Markulous]

Two feet closer (or is that 1/2 metre these days?!) and rest camera on ground - you've cleared the trees on the RHS with just those two in the middle. Having said that, it looks pretty good as is!

[Steve]

My 2p's worth...the subject is not isolated enough, either from the picture itself or the distracting background. Regarding the background, most of the others have already comented on possible solutions around that problem. As for seperting it from the picture, to make it stand out as the subject, you need to do that by using either depth of field or lighting

As Dabs has said and you have agreed, the lighting is harsh and not complementing your subject. You have both very dark and very bright spots on the tree but the much needed texture, that would make it more interesting and prominent, is missing due to the light not being favourable.

If you don't want to revisit at a more favourable time then some selective post processing to blur some of the background and dodge and burn the highlights and background to better isolate the tree would make a big difference. The best solution would be to re-shoot with a smaller dof in more favourable lighting and then do some dodging and burning work in PS to really make it a strong image

Hopefully that helps a little Jack

[Rob Barron]

I agree with what has been said thus far, the BG trees are definitely melding into the main subject a bit too much. Going a metre closer would have got the main bough of the tree a touch higher and given you more sky and less BG trees to help pull it forward. The main trunk is very central in the shot which isn't necessarily a problem but perhaps an extra area of just land and sky to the left would have decentralised it slightly.

I'd actually like to see your print of this to see the difference as I am certain it is much sharper than it looks here. I don't mean it is OOF at all, it isn't. It's the compression of tones around the branches which gives this effect when going down to low res. I am assuming you went for a relatively small aperture though as the BG is virtually as sharp as the main tree. This is the main area of control that you could have changed as per Steve's comments, open it up and push the BG OOF.

As Angela said, even buildings in the distant BG wouldn't be a big problem for two reasons: the first is that clean building lines in the BG would be less distracting than twisted branches in the BG when the main subject is also twisted branches. The other is that using a wide aperture would blur them off to stop them distracting, you could also burn them down if needed to stop them being intrusive.

It's a difficult subject you've gone for here Jack so definitely worth going back and giving it another attempt and seeing what else you can pull out of the bag

Cheers,
Rob