View Full Version : Treescape

Kaushik Balakumar
07-29-2010, 03:17 PM
While on the hiking path, I noticed this scene with a (almost) lone tree on the ridge of the mountain.
First thought in my mind was a B&W image of the same.
The image was exposed for the sky to contains just the details (i.e. without getting blown) while the FG was looking dark.
I do have sufficient details in shadows but while PP, I deliberately pulled it down further.
There were few interfering branches from nearby + some bushes on the far grassland which I did'nt want to be seen.
I also over-exposed the sky to give a high-key effect.
My thoughts on doing so was that, the scene as such did not have any dramatic sky or interesting FG elements etc. And that retaining colour and texture in sky (that of overcast clouds) or the FG (that of grassland + bushes + few distracting branches) would make the image more complex and detract the viewer from a simpler graphic representation - which was my original intention.
The original was a 2:3 ratio, but I added some canvas on top to give it a square-ish format.

Am really unsure if this image works (for lack of more interesting elements). Would love to know your thoughts on the image.

P.S. Also posted below is the 2:3 for,at of the image.

Kaushik Balakumar
07-29-2010, 03:18 PM
2:3 format of the same...

Kaushik Balakumar
07-29-2010, 03:19 PM
Oops !
@moderators: please move it to OOTB section if found better suited there. Thanks in advance.

Nick Palmieri
07-30-2010, 07:16 AM
I like the idea and it certainly works. IMO I like the 2/3 crop better, the blank sky in the OP is not adding much. I think removing the trees branches on the left upper rocks and making the rocks completely silhouetted (you are starting to see some detail in some of the rocks) would also strengthen this. Second look...maybe removing all the trees except the big one???? TFS

Hazel Grant
07-30-2010, 07:36 AM
I take the middle road. There's a lot of white at the top of the first post but the orig crop seems a bit tight. An interesting way to work with difficult lighting in an original. Gives it a modern "artwork" look I could see hanging on my son's apt wall.

Roman Kurywczak
07-30-2010, 10:38 AM
Hey Kaushik,
I'm with Hazel on the 2:3 crop.....just a touch more. Looking at your vision....I think you took a VG approach.....personally, I think you could go darker/totally black with the FG and silhouettes.....I don't feel any detail at all is adding. I'm with Nick too on cleaning the horizon up if you are OK with such things......the lone tree and line......makes a yin/yang presentation and becomes very graphic in quality.....which I like. Just some thoughts for you to consider.

Dave Mills
07-30-2010, 11:56 AM
Hi, agree with Roman's comments and can add thai I would take half off the dark base. However I still feel after the top crop there is too much white neg space.
I like your idea but would like to see the tree accentuated more...

Kaushik Balakumar
07-30-2010, 12:11 PM
Thanks for sharing your opinions on this image - appreciate it.
On second thoughts, I do agree that cloning of neighboring trees might bring more emphasis to the main tree.

Wheeler McDougal Jr.
07-30-2010, 05:40 PM
Kaushik - Really like your image and I hope you don't mind I tried to do some of the ideas given above. Hope it helps. I really like it.

Kaushik Balakumar
07-31-2010, 03:15 AM
Thanks a lot for taking your off to work on this image. Really appreciate it.
The cloning and further darkening of the ridges do seem to work better.

Hilary Hann
07-31-2010, 04:33 AM
This is a very interesting application of technique. I prefer the smaller trees left in, and don't even mind the small amount of detail in the rocks. Like the second posting best.

Arthur Morris
08-01-2010, 09:33 AM
Wheeler's graphic repost is just what I was thinking. Well done sure.