Posted by David Senesac on April 5, 2007 at 12:37 AM
A blue oak along one of the Mariposa County backroads atop a ridge late afternoon with nice clouds in the blue skies, March 22. Provia 4x5 with my 150mm Nikor then flatbed scanned and processed to match slide.
The last couple weeks I've done a couple road trips into Mariposa and Madera County areas including the Merced River canyon and Yosemite Valley. In fact I was there during the only two precipitation events during March with the last one presenting some snow ops. However my main focus was the beautiful green lower elevation blue oak savana grasslands and especially Merced River canyon areas like the Hite Cove Trail along the South Fork of the Merced River that have had a good bloom of flowers. I created a web page report for the two trips that can be accessed from my below home page. The sub-page includes a link to a 30 image slideshow from thsoe trips. Select the sub-page link for:
"Mariposa Foothills Wildflower Road Trips March 2007"
David, this is one grand old oak. I really think this is one of the most magestic looking ones I have ever seen. I think some post processing with some of TK's masks would bring down the harsh lighting on the tree trunk especially, making this thing really come to life with some deeper tone to it. Very nice capture overall.
I love the composition - specially the main tree and how it has been positioned within the frame. The light here doesn't quite capture my fancy, but I can see and appreciate what you are trying to depict.
I'll be blunt: The tree is nice and interresting as a natural occurence by itself and is a nice find. However the photo is flat.
The background is cut and there's nothing to see there. The bute on which the tree is set is also cut making it look like a flat 2D piece.
Overall it's a descriptive photo IMHO but does not convey any of your personality or sensibility: There's no depth and nothing much to set the tree in the frame, and interrest the viewer in the composition beyond describing a tree.
Dan, you seem to dismiss a valid strategy of photographing trees. You've offered some reasons for doing so which is fine if you don't prefer such a style, but you pose your thoughts as though it is a fault to do so.
Personally I don't prefer overly saturated sunrises, sunsets, dawn, and dust images that are popular these days simply because I prefer natural images. When offering critique comments I admit such manipulated images are positively aesthetic, that the style is quite legimate, and that I'm fine with others pursuing such a style. Just not something I personally prefer in my own work or those of others.
There are of course a number of ways one might photograph trees including the one you seem to be proposing. At the above link in my post is this example :
A nice image to be sure but not as impressive as the one above. However just as with vegetation and flowers, one does not necessarily need to image the subject while also including its local landscape. In fact from a aesthetic perspective one can often improve on any such image by finding some way to isolate the subject whether that be placing it against shadows, against smooth solid background colors, or the sky. We do the same thing using the sky with landforms like towering peaks and pinnacles. This is particularly true with trees because they often have interesting and inspiring shapes like this oak and the sky is an element always available. Thus with purpose I found a low perspective where my view camera was actually below the top of the property fence between two sets of barbed wires so I could prominently display the tree's fine shape. I use all these strategies in my body of work.
Posted by Richard Wong on April 8, 2007 at 3:22 PM
I'm aware of your style David and like it, though I don't agree that any type of light is more natural than another. It's all natural. With that said, I like hte image. A title I thought of is "Glorious Day." This shot conveys power and is quite simply, beautiful to look at. The surrounding colors and elements compliments the tree well.
Posted by Cory Freeman on April 8, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Magnificent oak tree David. I like the unique shape it's managed to take, with more growth on the left vs. the right. I think it might be a short spring season for us all in california, with summer not too far off.
Thanks for not getting offense at what I wrote.
I just post my mind,sometimes not in a PC way. I have no pretention of being the yardstick to measure what is good or not. I just post opinions... I sometimes get tired of trying to explain my thoughts in a non hurtfull way in case and I just go for it.
I'm just hoping to give you a feedback that will help you understand what others (aka me) see and feel when looking at your work. Then free for you to take it, leave it, or consider it for future reference. For me the "ah it's nice" comment doesn't help much improve to get to the next level of composition (nor would the "ah it's crap" either). I find it hard to get that kind of constructive information.
So for me the bottom line is I feel that this composition is too flat to stand out with the best of what posts here. And to get back with your answer, it has nothing to do with over-saturating or populating the photo ewith excess details etc.
When I write that I feel the photo is "flat" it's because it lacks (again IMHO) visual cues that would stimulate a search for the eye in the photo, and which would make the observation -erh- plentifull.
For example when you take a painting, you may see the global composition, possibly quite simple. But it won't stop there. You may realize that certain lines and movement draw you to a secondary point of the frame that will yield a second information that sets a mood, or provides situational cues etc.
If the photo was more abstract, strong lines and cues would dominate the photo, and though simple, the frame would contain secondary information that helps you decode a little more.
Well, all that to say I dunno what it is that's missing, but to me it's too flat
Execellent composition, and details. I liked also shadow of those branches. However, IMHO light is too flat. I'm not asking for over saturated image, but I think little warmer tone and contrast will male it an excellent image.
Discussion
8 repliesThe last couple weeks I've done a couple road trips into Mariposa and Madera County areas including the Merced River canyon and Yosemite Valley. In fact I was there during the only two precipitation events during March with the last one presenting some snow ops. However my main focus was the beautiful green lower elevation blue oak savana grasslands and especially Merced River canyon areas like the Hite Cove Trail along the South Fork of the Merced River that have had a good bloom of flowers. I created a web page report for the two trips that can be accessed from my below home page. The sub-page includes a link to a 30 image slideshow from thsoe trips. Select the sub-page link for:
"Mariposa Foothills Wildflower Road Trips March 2007"
...David Senesac
I love the composition - specially the main tree and how it has been positioned within the frame. The light here doesn't quite capture my fancy, but I can see and appreciate what you are trying to depict.
The background is cut and there's nothing to see there. The bute on which the tree is set is also cut making it look like a flat 2D piece.
Overall it's a descriptive photo IMHO but does not convey any of your personality or sensibility: There's no depth and nothing much to set the tree in the frame, and interrest the viewer in the composition beyond describing a tree.
Personally I don't prefer overly saturated sunrises, sunsets, dawn, and dust images that are popular these days simply because I prefer natural images. When offering critique comments I admit such manipulated images are positively aesthetic, that the style is quite legimate, and that I'm fine with others pursuing such a style. Just not something I personally prefer in my own work or those of others.
There are of course a number of ways one might photograph trees including the one you seem to be proposing. At the above link in my post is this example :
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Mariposa_3-07/07-J4-4w.jpg
A nice image to be sure but not as impressive as the one above. However just as with vegetation and flowers, one does not necessarily need to image the subject while also including its local landscape. In fact from a aesthetic perspective one can often improve on any such image by finding some way to isolate the subject whether that be placing it against shadows, against smooth solid background colors, or the sky. We do the same thing using the sky with landforms like towering peaks and pinnacles. This is particularly true with trees because they often have interesting and inspiring shapes like this oak and the sky is an element always available. Thus with purpose I found a low perspective where my view camera was actually below the top of the property fence between two sets of barbed wires so I could prominently display the tree's fine shape. I use all these strategies in my body of work.
http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_03s3-21.html
...David
Thanks for not getting offense at what I wrote.
I just post my mind,sometimes not in a PC way. I have no pretention of being the yardstick to measure what is good or not. I just post opinions... I sometimes get tired of trying to explain my thoughts in a non hurtfull way in case and I just go for it.
I'm just hoping to give you a feedback that will help you understand what others (aka me) see and feel when looking at your work. Then free for you to take it, leave it, or consider it for future reference. For me the "ah it's nice" comment doesn't help much improve to get to the next level of composition (nor would the "ah it's crap" either). I find it hard to get that kind of constructive information.
So for me the bottom line is I feel that this composition is too flat to stand out with the best of what posts here. And to get back with your answer, it has nothing to do with over-saturating or populating the photo ewith excess details etc.
When I write that I feel the photo is "flat" it's because it lacks (again IMHO) visual cues that would stimulate a search for the eye in the photo, and which would make the observation -erh- plentifull.
For example when you take a painting, you may see the global composition, possibly quite simple. But it won't stop there. You may realize that certain lines and movement draw you to a secondary point of the frame that will yield a second information that sets a mood, or provides situational cues etc.
If the photo was more abstract, strong lines and cues would dominate the photo, and though simple, the frame would contain secondary information that helps you decode a little more.
Well, all that to say I dunno what it is that's missing, but to me it's too flat