Nature Reserve

[Neilmac50]

Friday I went for my first walk in the Helderberg nature reserve, part of the trail I chose took me through the path that a stream takes in the rainy season originating in a waterfall.It was an extremely steep path to take but stunning as the route was shaded by many trees forming a canopy from the sun, it had a primaeval feel to it.



I felt that the b&w treatment suited the subject better, however as I know everyone has their own take on a scene so for your comparison I am including the original colour version.

[Rebel]

I don't think the B&W works for me, there is def potential in the colour version though. Maybe a crop off the top a bit?

I have an image very similar to this which I have been tinkering with for weeks... There is just something I'm not sure about on it.

[Shadowman]

The first edit has a graphic pen style which works for me.

[Rebel]

Hope you don't mind, this is the crop I had in mind....

[bnnrcn]

Hi Neil, certainly color one for me as the shadows and light can be seen much better and colours add to the scene a lot I like your original.

[Dave Humphries]

I can never make my shots like this work for me, the results never evoke the feelings I had when I was there, nor even show the reason I clicked the shutter. There's just too much 'clutter' detail in the background for me to cope with.

In fact even my shots of a defined subject, say a tree stump, taken in a forest setting usually just look "blah" on the computer.

I'm sure there's a joke about 'not seeing the trees for the wood' (or vice versa) to be had, but I can't even manage that.

So I'm afraid this falls into the same category, although - of the ones shown so far, the most successful is Matt's crop of Neil's shot.

Sorry I couldn't say anything more positive.

[Rebel]

I can never make my shots like this work for me, the results never evoke the feelings I had when I was there, nor even show the reason I clicked the shutter. There's just too much 'clutter' detail in the background for me to cope with.

In fact even my shots of a defined subject, say a tree stump, taken in a forest setting usually just look "blah" on the computer.

I'm sure there's a joke about 'not seeing the trees for the wood' (or vice versa) to be had, but I can't even manage that.

So I'm afraid this falls into the same category, although - of the ones shown so far, the most successful is Matt's crop of Neil's shot.

Sorry I couldn't say anything more positive.

Dave thats exactly how I feel, at the time I think... this will be a great shot... but I'm always disappointed when I get home

[Slipper]

I like the colour in this case Neil, but agree mono very often works.
I agree with Dave above, in that it is difficult to get trees to "work". I wonder if it is because nt their very nature they present a cluttered scene.
I have a mono of an old tree, and I thought it was a bit special, but I have never had and really favorable comments for it. however I still really like it and thats the point.

[pnodrog]

I can never make my shots like this work for me, the results never evoke the feelings I had when I was there, nor even show the reason I clicked the shutter. There's just too much 'clutter' detail in the background for me to cope with.

In fact even my shots of a defined subject, say a tree stump, taken in a forest setting usually just look "blah" on the computer.

I'm sure there's a joke about 'not seeing the trees for the wood' (or vice versa) to be had, but I can't even manage that.

So I'm afraid this falls into the same category, although - of the ones shown so far, the most successful is Matt's crop of Neil's shot.

Sorry I couldn't say anything more positive.

To a large extent I share Dave's thoughts. I rarely attempt to take a photograph in the bush unless it is a foggy or very overcast day. Otherwise the strong dappled lighting just seems to add to the confusion and complexity of the scene. A few of my bush photographs have worked (at least to my satisfaction) but the failure rate is enormous. The ones that have worked have had a dominant focal point or feature with the bush/trees just acting as an environmental backdrop.

Matt's crop is an improvement because it emphasis the rocks a little more than they are in the uncropped version.

[Barnwell]

I like the 1st one in B&W. It seems to be quieter. The color version gives more to interpret in an already busy scene.

[IzzieK]

I like both, Neil...when I viewed the first one, I thought it has a lot of going for it to be interpreted it that way in B/W...then you also showed us the coloured version which explained the dappled lighting better. Matt's edit looks more like what is to be expected of what you viewed (although I wasn't there to have seen it closer than just a picture...) but I like both your coloured version one and that of Matt. It just shows how much potential there is to be had with it. Taking a photo in a cluttered environment with all the light provided by nature is just a difficult task but you accomplished that here. Nice job.

[Kaye Leggett]

I can never make my shots like this work for me, the results never evoke the feelings I had when I was there, nor even show the reason I clicked the shutter. There's just too much 'clutter' detail in the background for me to cope with.

In fact even my shots of a defined subject, say a tree stump, taken in a forest setting usually just look "blah" on the computer.

I'm sure there's a joke about 'not seeing the trees for the wood' (or vice versa) to be had, but I can't even manage that.

So I'm afraid this falls into the same category, although - of the ones shown so far, the most successful is Matt's crop of Neil's shot.

Sorry I couldn't say anything more positive.

Thanks for the encouragement Dave - It's nice to hear I'm not the only one