Black & White Tree by a Pond (My first critique request here)

lurchlarson · 01-14-2010, 03:50 PM

This was taken with my Quantaray 70-300 Macro. Just asking for some feedback trying to get better. There is a better version of it Here

Sorry for the out-inking for the bigger image. I'm just the paranoid type.

Attached Images

Last edited by lurchlarson; 01-14-2010 at 04:07 PM.

Damn Brit · 01-14-2010, 08:21 PM

Nice asymmetric picture, it reminds me a lot of some of the pictorial stuff produced by the early proponents of photography like Steichen and Stieglitz in the first quarter of the 20th century.

Two things, I would crop it so that the trees and their reflections are much larger in the frame. They are the subject and the extra space all around them detracts from them. I would also add contrast by making them darker to add some drama.

juu · 01-14-2010, 10:41 PM

I'm not certain the horizon is 100% straight. Furthermore it is nearly symmetrical, but not quite. I would see what happens if you make it symmetrical as much as possible.

But I didn't confirm his by loading it up in any tools so I could be wrong.

wallyb · 01-15-2010, 08:11 AM

The horizon is definitely straight (or as straight as an inherently curved and bumpy surface can be). It's also just about as symmetrical as any landscape could be. Even if it weren't perfectly symmetrical, that's good, otherwise it would look fake and contrived, like you wanted to make a semi-abstract symmetrical art instead of a photograph of a serene location. Very nice photo, but I would like to see the original in color.

juu · 01-15-2010, 08:19 AM

You are right, wallyb. I don't know what I was thinking last night. My apologies.

lurchlarson · 01-15-2010, 10:10 AM

Thank you for your input. Here is one with a little more contrast and a closer crop for comparison. I chose not to do the color because I want this picture to be strictly about the forms.

slinco · 01-15-2010, 10:54 AM

I definitely like the original better - the tonality is lovely and the "distance" of the scene works better for me. The only thing I'd do differently with the original one is crop a bit of the open water at the bottom.

Nice Photo.

juu · 01-15-2010, 11:07 AM

The original is better. I think it's a great picture too.

wallyb · 01-15-2010, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by juu

You are right, wallyb. I don't know what I was thinking last night. My apologies.

No need for apologies mate, we all have our own opinion. I'm just stating how I disagreed

juu · 01-15-2010, 01:25 PM

wally, even though I'm entitled to an opinion, it turned out to be completely wrong. I had to go and measure pixels to confirm though

.

lurchlarson, btw the linked version opens up as way more sepia than the one you embedded here. I like the sepia version better, and I don't think it needs cropping, at least not much more than a slight bit from the bottom (and sides to keep the same aspect ratio).

This photograph has also grown on me a bit and especially in the sepia version I think it is really really great.

**Ash** · 01-15-2010, 01:31 PM

A good scene captured well and PP'd appropriately.
Original version seems to retain more shadow detail than the 2nd edit.
If anything I'd suggest a tighter crop to eliminate some of the redundant foliage on either side of the trees, and from top and bottom to cut out some of the bland sky and water without cropping off the tree details.

lurchlarson · 01-15-2010, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by juu

lurchlarson, btw the linked version opens up as way more sepia than the one you embedded here. I like the sepia version better, and I don't think it needs cropping, at least not much more than a slight bit from the bottom (and sides to keep the same aspect ratio).
.

The linked sepia/bw version from my website is truer to what the original file on my computer looks like. I don't know where things got lost. I didn't change the colors when i exported for uploading here.

I agree that that I should crop a smidge off the bottom. I like the sides because (at least to my eye) it gives them room to move. Breathing room so to speak.

Anyways, all your feedback has been great! Thank you.

juu · 01-16-2010, 12:06 AM

Probably the JPG ICC profile gets lost. Some sites and some software lose it. It is all very complex and I don't really get it, but the key is in the ICC profile.

jadams360 · 01-20-2010, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

I agree that that I should crop a smidge off the bottom. I like the sides because (at least to my eye) it gives them room to move. Breathing room so to speak.

The picture looks great without cropping. GOOD JOB!

01-14-2010, 03:50 PM	#1
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681	Tree by a Pond (My first critique request here) Lens: 165mm Camera: K200d ISO: 400 Shutter Speed: 1/350s Aperture: F4 This was taken with my Quantaray 70-300 Macro. Just asking for some feedback trying to get better. There is a better version of it Here Sorry for the out-inking for the bigger image. I'm just the paranoid type. Attached Images Last edited by lurchlarson; 01-14-2010 at 04:07 PM.

01-15-2010, 08:19 AM	#5
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	You are right, wallyb. I don't know what I was thinking last night. My apologies. Last edited by juu; 01-15-2010 at 11:08 AM.

01-15-2010, 10:10 AM	#6
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681 Original Poster	Thank you for your input. Here is one with a little more contrast and a closer crop for comparison. I chose not to do the color because I want this picture to be strictly about the forms. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature around the pond.....	dcmsox2004	Post Your Photos!	5	10-21-2010 10:43 PM
Nature Down by the Pond	8540tomg	Post Your Photos!	4	04-05-2010 01:45 PM
A pond	Pål Jensen	Post Your Photos!	16	05-30-2009 07:02 AM
The Pond	Jimbo	Post Your Photos!	20	11-13-2008 07:24 PM
From the pond	elnero	Post Your Photos!	1	02-19-2008 10:16 PM

01-14-2010, 08:21 PM	#2
Damn Brit Guest	Nice asymmetric picture, it reminds me a lot of some of the pictorial stuff produced by the early proponents of photography like Steichen and Stieglitz in the first quarter of the 20th century. Two things, I would crop it so that the trees and their reflections are much larger in the frame. They are the subject and the extra space all around them detracts from them. I would also add contrast by making them darker to add some drama.

01-14-2010, 10:41 PM	#3
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	I'm not certain the horizon is 100% straight. Furthermore it is nearly symmetrical, but not quite. I would see what happens if you make it symmetrical as much as possible. But I didn't confirm his by loading it up in any tools so I could be wrong.

01-15-2010, 08:11 AM	#4
wallyb Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The Untied States Photos: Albums Posts: 1,881	The horizon is definitely straight (or as straight as an inherently curved and bumpy surface can be). It's also just about as symmetrical as any landscape could be. Even if it weren't perfectly symmetrical, that's good, otherwise it would look fake and contrived, like you wanted to make a semi-abstract symmetrical art instead of a photograph of a serene location. Very nice photo, but I would like to see the original in color.

01-15-2010, 10:54 AM	#7
slinco Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Upstate New York Posts: 203	I definitely like the original better - the tonality is lovely and the "distance" of the scene works better for me. The only thing I'd do differently with the original one is crop a bit of the open water at the bottom. Nice Photo.

01-15-2010, 11:07 AM	#8
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	The original is better. I think it's a great picture too.

01-15-2010, 12:39 PM	#9
wallyb Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: The Untied States Photos: Albums Posts: 1,881	Originally posted by juu You are right, wallyb. I don't know what I was thinking last night. My apologies. No need for apologies mate, we all have our own opinion. I'm just stating how I disagreed

01-15-2010, 01:25 PM	#10
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	wally, even though I'm entitled to an opinion, it turned out to be completely wrong. I had to go and measure pixels to confirm though . lurchlarson, btw the linked version opens up as way more sepia than the one you embedded here. I like the sepia version better, and I don't think it needs cropping, at least not much more than a slight bit from the bottom (and sides to keep the same aspect ratio). This photograph has also grown on me a bit and especially in the sepia version I think it is really really great.

01-15-2010, 01:31 PM	#11
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	A good scene captured well and PP'd appropriately. Original version seems to retain more shadow detail than the 2nd edit. If anything I'd suggest a tighter crop to eliminate some of the redundant foliage on either side of the trees, and from top and bottom to cut out some of the bland sky and water without cropping off the tree details.

01-15-2010, 08:07 PM	#12
lurchlarson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 681 Original Poster	Originally posted by juu lurchlarson, btw the linked version opens up as way more sepia than the one you embedded here. I like the sepia version better, and I don't think it needs cropping, at least not much more than a slight bit from the bottom (and sides to keep the same aspect ratio). . The linked sepia/bw version from my website is truer to what the original file on my computer looks like. I don't know where things got lost. I didn't change the colors when i exported for uploading here. I agree that that I should crop a smidge off the bottom. I like the sides because (at least to my eye) it gives them room to move. Breathing room so to speak. Anyways, all your feedback has been great! Thank you.

01-16-2010, 12:06 AM	#13
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	Probably the JPG ICC profile gets lost. Some sites and some software lose it. It is all very complex and I don't really get it, but the key is in the ICC profile.

01-20-2010, 02:04 PM	#14
jadams360 Guest	Originally posted by lurchlarson I agree that that I should crop a smidge off the bottom. I like the sides because (at least to my eye) it gives them room to move. Breathing room so to speak. The picture looks great without cropping. GOOD JOB!