Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Dimension 4
‹ PreviousLandscape GalleryNext ›

Dimension 4

by Ted Gore

Gallery: LandscapePosted September 2, 2013734 views21 comments
To me this image is a stark reminder that we are merely just blips in the vast dimension of time. An ancient bristlecone tree under the milky way. A tree I found up on the mountain in the Schulman Grove. This was shot shortly after sunset, and the foreground was entirely lit by a setting crescent moon behind me. Because it was setting shortly after the sun set, it acquired the sunsets orange glow as it got lower on the horizon, and gave off the perfect warm glow. My camera was on the ground, using rocks to position it, and I shot 5 shots for DOF for the foreground. The Sky was 20secs, f2.8, iso4000

Compositionally this tree was a challenge, and I don't think it's the best there is to offer in this area by any means, but I really liked the large piece of wood coming out towards camera, and the lines it and the mess of branches provided to guide the eye into the stars. The middle of the image is a bit jumbled, but I think overall it's pretty effective.

Processing took some time, and I've put a good bit of time into it so far. I always have a tough time getting stars to look how I'd like them to, but you have to stop somewhere.

Happy to hear any C&C you may have!

LARGE VERSION

Comments

21 comments
Comment posted by Matt Anderson on September 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Not the first I've seen of this scene, but this scene is well seen and processed keen, know what I mean jelly bean?

Registered on September 6, 2007, 346 Posts, 2696 Comments
Comment posted by John Mumaw on September 2, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Well, this is the first that I've seen this particular scene, and I think it's wonderful! The shape of that tree shows the effects of age quite well and the light on it is sublime. Composition is excellent, too. 'Development' is near perfect. My only suggestion may be to clone out the tiny, bright dash of light in the lower left quadrant by the farthest branch near the ground (esp. visible in the large version).
Registered on September 9, 2005, 62 Posts, 2289 Comments
Comment posted by Shantikara Valuska on September 2, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Absolutely stunning!!! I like your composition, and the processing is perfect. I also like the natural illumination of the foregound.
:toast: :toast:
Registered on July 25, 2011, 38 Posts, 451 Comments
Comment posted by Richard Hartmann on September 2, 2013 at 4:27 PM
What a delight, you got it right on this night. The foreground seems a bit bright, but I won’t fright cuz it’s out of sight.
Registered on January 15, 2009, 13 Posts, 772 Comments
Comment posted by Peter Coskun on September 2, 2013 at 6:07 PM
I like this more every time I look at it Ted. I do agree with Johns suggestion about the lower left, I think just darkening that spot would help a bit. I have been trying to plan some night shooting up there the past 2 years and it has not happened, so I am hoping next year I can give it a go.
Registered on October 31, 2011, 170 Posts, 1240 Comments
Comment posted by Ted Gore on September 2, 2013 at 6:22 PM
haha, I love that this shot is inspiring the poets within you all.

John, I've circled two spots that I think you might be referring to. I believe you are talking about the yellow circled spot?
Registered on April 25, 2013, 36 Posts, 149 Comments
Comment posted by Preston Birdwell on September 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM
Real nice, Ted. Our galaxy and these wonderful ancient trees put on a pretty good show.

Well done!

--P
Registered on November 1, 2003, 471 Posts, 5188 Comments
Comment posted by John Mumaw on September 2, 2013 at 7:05 PM
Oh no, those are no prblem at all. What I'm referring to is a small 'dash' the size of two pinheads near the furthest branch away in the far away trees near the ground. It's almost meaningless, but it did catch my eye in the large version as I thought it was a rogue star.
Registered on September 9, 2005, 62 Posts, 2289 Comments
Comment posted by Bill Fach on September 2, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Ted: Jaw dropping awesome IMO. I've never done one of these but you're inspiring me to try. Of course we don't see the Milky Way as a BG in Flora much :wink:. Outstanding. >=))>
Registered on November 1, 2003, 1805 Posts, 26981 Comments
Comment posted by Navin Sarma on September 2, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Awesome shot, Ted! The comp works really well and I love the color palate you directed using the subtle tones of sunset. Expertly processed.
Registered on July 17, 2011, 233 Posts, 1373 Comments
Comment posted by Allen Brooks on September 2, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Fantastic shot. The tree makes this one for me. Thanks for sharing.
Registered on July 27, 2011, 262 Posts, 2597 Comments
Comment posted by Bill Reid on September 3, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Awesome shot Ted and I like the placement of the stump. The processing is just great and the colors. Really nicely done. :toast:
Registered on January 27, 2013, 65 Posts, 2460 Comments
Comment posted by James Fougère on September 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM
Nice capture, with great processing :cool:

I like the fact that you chose a 20 sec exposure for the sky to limit the earths rotation effect on the stars. With these new DSLR and there high ISO capability, this is the way to go for night shots! Well Done :biggrin:
Registered on October 25, 2010, 41 Posts, 831 Comments
Comment posted by Stan Rose on September 3, 2013 at 1:02 PM
I've seen a bunch of bristlecone&milky way shots too. This is a good one; I like the comp and you got a great clean shot of the MW. I'm not a huge fan of this 'sort' of shot, because it makes the scene look like a museum display IMO--the impossibly clear MW in back of the clear fg. It removes me from the scene rather than bringing me there. Of course, the catch22 is that if you go even darker (whcih IMO makes the scene more realistic, more approachable as a subject) then you lose the 'artistic' look that generally goes over well with the crowd. Thankfully, until i get a better camera/lens--i dont have to deal with that dilemma :biggrin:
Registered on September 15, 2005, 836 Posts, 17099 Comments
Comment posted by Jeremy Kessler on September 3, 2013 at 7:19 PM
Love it! keep up the great work.
Registered on September 13, 2007, 36 Posts, 1283 Comments
Comment posted by Colin H Sillerud on September 3, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Very nice image. I think the processing works just great. you haven't over done the milky way or the light on the tree itself. well done.
Registered on May 26, 2011, 17 Posts, 58 Comments
Comment posted by Zack Clothier on September 4, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Ted, I think this works pretty well. I like the natural light that the moon provided. One thing I am not a big fan of (and this is personal taste) is using really high ISOs that render to many stars. The sky feels noisy due to the amount of stars that the higher ISO picked up. Still a nice looking scene. If it were mine I might reduce the clarity a bit in the sky to make it appear a little less sharp.
Registered on January 28, 2010, 343 Posts, 2257 Comments
Comment posted by Chris Moore on September 4, 2013 at 1:06 PM
I think this is pretty sweet, and I really enjoy the processing. No nits here.
Registered on January 12, 2010, 84 Posts, 388 Comments
Comment posted by Shane McDermott on September 4, 2013 at 7:47 PM
This is awesome Ted! Easily one of the best I have seen from this area. I love how you proceeded it as well. :toast: :toast: :toast:
Registered on November 12, 2007, 49 Posts, 1074 Comments
Comment posted by Shane McDermott on September 8, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Ted, it is ridiculous that your image doesn't have more comments, as it is spectacular! Frankly it is one of the few frustrating aspects of NPN. If MA had posted this it would have had 60 comments. Anyways, just wanted you to know it is exceptional work!

Shane
Registered on November 12, 2007, 49 Posts, 1074 Comments
Comment posted by Ted Gore on September 9, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Thanks Shane! I appreciate the comment! I wouldn't expect the punt of love MA gets around here. :)

Zack, I hear what you're saying and I've actually reduced the amount of stars from the original process I did. This was also shot at only iso 4000. Could probably easily get by with 3200 for a sky that was as clear as this one was.

Thanks for all the comments, peeps
Registered on April 25, 2013, 36 Posts, 149 Comments