B&W tree

[Rufus]

I liked the droopiness of this tree, and prefer it in B&W.

This shot is has had minimal processing so far and I am not sure whether to invest time in it (all processing still takes me ages).

I could take out the posts at the centre bottom, the bramble on the right that crosses the horizon, and the tree on the far right which is disected by the framing. Or, does the bramble add balance and scale?

I feel inclined to flip on the vertical axis so the tree leans to the right, as our brain is trained to read that way.

The sky lacks interest at the top, but I suspect there is little I can do with that.

The major question for me is whether the whispy branches are sufficienty well defined, and if not, the best tools to improve that.



C&C always welcome.

[Shadowman]

The framing is fine, the branches are a bit soft and the exposure a bit under and bland. The post is too close to the composition's edge, removal or reshoot would be my suggestion.

[Manfred M]

The general rule one should look at is that if something is quite close to the edge of the frame or crosses the edge, one has to see if it detracts from the overall image. If it does, then it should be removed and if it does not, then it can stay. I've played around with your image for a minute of so and removed a few elements that I found cause problems.

I also played around with the overall contrast and sky detail a bit too. I find that the large tree is a bit too close to the left hand edge of the frame.

[Rufus]

The framing is fine, the branches are a bit soft and the exposure a bit under and bland. The post is too close to the composition's edge, removal or reshoot would be my suggestion.

Thanks for commneting, John. I guess if the whispey branches are soft it will be due to air movement and too slow a shutter speed. If the branches are also soft then perhaps my focusing was poor. I wish Lightroom could show where the focus was!

The shot was taken close to ground level (ground level was a little higher than where the tree stood) in order to frame the tree against as much sky as possible while also filling the frame.

A reshoot is feasible at some stage before it comes into leaf.

[Shadowman]

Thanks for commneting, John. I guess if the whispey branches are soft it will be due to air movement and too slow a shutter speed. If the branches are also soft then perhaps my focusing was poor. I wish Lightroom could show where the focus was!

The shot was taken close to ground level (ground level was a little higher than where the tree stood) in order to frame the tree against as much sky as possible while also filling the frame.

A reshoot is feasible at some stage before it comes into leaf.

Hi David,

Perhaps the Canon software for your camera will show where the focus point fell within the composition.

[Rufus]

The general rule one should look at is that if something is quite close to the edge of the frame or crosses the edge, one has to see if it detracts from the overall image. If it does, then it should be removed and if it does not, then it can stay. I've played around with your image for a minute of so and removed a few elements that I found cause problems.

I also played around with the overall contrast and sky detail a bit too. I find that the large tree is a bit too close to the left hand edge of the frame.

I was planning on removing the two posts and the small tree on the right hand side. Your rationale explains the intuitive instinct to allow me to look for similar things in the future.

I agree the tree is too close to the left hand edge. I was concentrating too much on ensuring it was not placed centrally. Had I noticed this at the time I could have moved further away. This would have given more space on both sides and I could have cropped out any additional sky.

I tried some additional contrast after posting the image and playing with blacks and midtones but I did not acheive any significant improvement. I will have another attempt at that.

Thanks for commenting and illustrating.

[Rufus]

Perhaps the Canon software for your camera will show where the focus point fell within the composition.

I think it may well do but I have never investigated that software. I do know that there is an option for the focus point to show on the camera screen after shooting, but I stopped using that as too many types of indicators tend to detract from reviewing the image. I should reconsider that.

[Urbanflyer]

If you are open to really working the post processing, don't forget that you can increase the size of the canvas and use content aware to create the space on the left you are missing. In addition playing with clarity can bring out more interest in the sky. This, of course, does not solve softness issues.

(For purposes of easy posting I have added this as a private photo on my Flickr site and will remove it after this post is no longer current.)

igzvjqjn by urbanflyer, on Flickr

[Rufus]

If you are open to really working the post processing, don't forget that you can increase the size of the canvas and use content aware to create the space on the left you are missing. In addition playing with clarity can bring out more interest in the sky. This, of course, does not solve softness issues.

Thank you Judith for commenting and taking the time to illustrate what you say. I shall be be happy to spend some time on the processing and it is great to get some pointers before I set off in the wrong direction. I have tried increasing the canvas size in the past with modest success but your use of it here was seemless.

[MrB]

The extra space in the composition by Judith works well, as does the removal of the distracting little sapling in the bottom right.

Philip