Tree Down

[parksinep]

Good day all.
I'm new to CiC and this is the first time I've posted and looked for a critique. All feedback is welcome. I've always enjoyed photography, have a lot to learn, have recently retired, and would like to learn/improve to the greatest extent possible. I'll post a few others and try to gauge where I stand based on the feedback I get. Please let me know what you think.
Thank you.
Jeff

[xpatUSA]

Good day all.
I'm new to CiC and this is the first time I've posted and looked for a critique. All feedback is welcome. I've always enjoyed photography, have a lot to learn, have recently retired, and would like to learn/improve to the greatest extent possible. I'll post a few others and try to gauge where I stand based on the feedback I get. Please let me know what you think.
Thank you.
Jeff

Hello Jeff,

I like tree shots. I am also retired but since 2005.

Would like to see the background foliage and the fallen tree at rear less in focus, so as to bring out the subject more.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jeff,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I'm going to provide the rest of our mob with a few details from the EXIF data from this shot, since we don't know what you have and it may help them provide more useful feedback.

This was shot with a Nikon D7200 using the Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 lens at 110mm.
Aperture Priority; f/5.6, 1/250s, ISO 400, Auto WB, shot in July 2015.
Processed in LR 5.7 via the DNG converter.


It is a pleasant enough composition with the tree obviously the subject, plus you have a good exposure and tonal range.

Looking at the image, it is fairly small at 720 x 384 px to assess, but it looks to me a touch over sharpened, to be precise; the Amount is too high and the Threshold is a bit low, this has resulted in smudgy low contrast detail and ultra-sharp, bright edged high contrast details (e.g. the thin pale branches against darker backgrounds).

I hope you find my observations useful, Dave


PS It would help if future images posted for review are about twice this size;
e.g. 1400+ (wide) x 700+ (high).

[Shadowman]

Nice concept, not sure if I would have shot it any differently.

[parksinep]

Hello Jeff,

I like tree shots. I am also retired but since 2005.

Would like to see the background foliage and the fallen tree at rear less in focus, so as to bring out the subject more.

Good feedback. Thank you Ted.

[parksinep]

Rookie mistakes.
Will include EXIF data next time.
Was trying to size in accordance with guidelines I thought I'd seen somewhere else on the site. Nice to know I can make larger.
Will go back and play with sharpness to see if I can improve image.
I find your observations very useful and very much appreciate you taking the time.
Thank you Dave.

[xpatUSA]

Will include EXIF data next time.

No need to do that explicitly, Jeff; the image you posted had all the EXIF embedded and more, like all the photoshop stuff (XMP, etc).

Was trying to size in accordance with guidelines I thought I'd seen somewhere else on the site.

1600 wide max here, IIRC. 1500x1000px is what I often post (if 3:2, obviously).

. . . as Crocodile Dundee (in New York) might have said:

"Tree, mate, you call that a tree?" . . .

Went into town last year and, on my return, found this blocking the only road back to the property:



Some more Highways Dept. folks showed up and had it cleared in about 45 mins!

[Wavelength]

Hi Jeff, nicely done; two problems i find are, firstly the subject lacks contrast with the background and next is absence of a perfect and complete reflection of the fallen tree. If the second was there, the first would have been visually compensated. ....
Regards

[Jeff S]

I'm finding that my eye is roving all across the photo with no place to rest. The subject matter lends itself to that, of course, but I would like it better if there was a focal point on which to rest. (Incidentally, I do the same thing all the time, so I may be a bit hyper about this.)

[parksinep]

Hi Jeff, nicely done; two problems i find are, firstly the subject lacks contrast with the background and next is absence of a perfect and complete reflection of the fallen tree. If the second was there, the first would have been visually compensated. ....
Regards

Thanks Nandakumar. All reactions are helpful at this point.

[parksinep]

I'm finding that my eye is roving all across the photo with no place to rest. The subject matter lends itself to that, of course, but I would like it better if there was a focal point on which to rest. (Incidentally, I do the same thing all the time, so I may be a bit hyper about this.)

Thank you Jeff