PDA

View Full Version : Old



Michael Lloyd
11-15-2010, 10:37 PM
This old oak tree watches over San Antonio Bay in Aransas National Wildlife Refuge

EOS 1DsMkIII manual
TS-E24mm f3.5L II hand held. I get grief for shooting a tilt shift lens hand held but it works for me.

ISO 800
1/25s @f8

82482

Dave Mills
11-16-2010, 02:14 PM
Hi Michael, trees like this can make for very interesting subjects. Black and white can very often work well if the tree really stands out. There are 2 things that I would suggest. Try and find a subject like this without all the backround distraction. All the extraneous branches,vines and the left sides backround take away from the overall impact. I would also lighten the tree a bit to show more detail......

Robert Amoruso
11-16-2010, 02:37 PM
Michael,

The lack of good tonal separation is causing the image to look "muddy" (a term from back in my B&W film printing days though I have not heard it for quite some time). As I am just starting to learn B&W conversions I don't have a specific recommendation for you here on how to correct it.

I also agree with Dave's comment on the background business.

Andrew McLachlan
11-16-2010, 07:53 PM
Hi Michael, I agree with the above comments. It looks like a very interesting tree. I wonder what it might look like if you were to lay on the ground and shoot up through the twisted branches with a wide angle lens.

Michael Lloyd
11-16-2010, 08:41 PM
I took the shortcut B&W conversion route and it shows. I need to revisit the image and make use of the training that I took from John Paul Caponigro last year. He's got some pretty good techniques for B&W conversion.

Andrew- Nice... I like that idea. I'll have to give that a shot (pun intended)

One thing that gets lost in this image is the sheer size of the tree. It's at least 4' in diameter and it could be over 400 years old. I have no way to know the true age of the tree but a little internet searching yielded a reasonable guess of 400 years. When the tree first sprang from the ground explorers and colonists had been in what is now Texas for only 100 years or so (the explorers arrived in the early 1500's and the tree would have come to life in the early 1600's if the age estimate is correct). The coastal area was predominantly occupied by Karankawa, Akokisa and other tribal groups back then and it looked a lot different than it does now. It was a coastal plain so it's possible that the tree wasn't native when it was "born". The early explorers planted trees so their livestock would have shade during the hot summers. The point is that finding another one with no clutter is going to prove to be difficult at best. A lot of what you are seeing in the branches is a Muscadine grape vine (bird food).

Roman Kurywczak
11-16-2010, 10:44 PM
Hey Michael,
I hope that's a typo at 1/25 sec!....otherwise the tripod police (AKA me!) will be laerted!!! Great advice above....but remember....WA tend to minimize size if too far away. Think how birds or animals look when we use a WA......so get closer to give that scale! Just another idea for you to try out!

Michael Lloyd
11-16-2010, 10:57 PM
Hey... it was a whole .0017 seconds faster than the the reciprocal rule allows so hand holding must be allowed per the "rule book" :cool:

I composed for the limbs on the right side of the frame to exit the upper right corner. That said... it might be a stronger composition if I had composed with the same idea in mind but gotten closer and composed the "crap" (technical term) on the left out of the frame by placing the left side of the trunk near the left edge of the frame. Thoughts?

FWIW- I don't disagree that that there is too much clutter and (imho) I think my B&W conversion is nothing short of horrendous :D I think that I can say that about me and not get in trouble... I hope :cool:

Dennis "Curly" Buchner
11-17-2010, 08:04 AM
I like the composition, but bothered by the huge bright spot upper left corner as it really make your eye go there first

John Hawkins
11-17-2010, 08:15 AM
I agree with most comments. Still think it is an interesting subject. Maybe you could move to the left and that may get rid of most of the distracting debris.

Michael Lloyd
11-17-2010, 09:01 AM
I appreciate all of the suggestions and comments. They made me think about the image and look at it with more intent.

(1) Roman- You are correct. From 100 yards away the image would pass as "sharp enough". Hand holding at the shutter speed that I used was the result of quick shooting and bad planning. It doesn't take much "zooming in" to see that there is motion blur. As such the image is relegated to "snap shot" quality.

(2) The clutter and bright spots detract from the image. However, it's an interesting subject and it deserves a different approach to capture it at it's best. Game on.

Compositionally speaking, all I have to work with at the moment is my image. I played with cropping it to see if I could work around the clutter. Instead of a 5 second B&W conversion process I used a 5 minute B&W conversion process. It can be better but for now I'm more concerned with composition so I'll let this stand as a starting point.

I would appreciate additional comments on the repost. Does the crop help with the over all composition or is it worse? Did I go the right way with the B&W conversion? I like Andrew's idea so I'll try that in addition to whatever comes up when I go back.

One thing that I had forgotten from the seminar- In order to get the best B&W conversion possible from a color image the photographer needs to capture the maximum dynamic range possible even to the point of using HDR or boosting saturation. B&W is color. I forget that sometimes.

Rough draft below

82580

Dave Mills
11-17-2010, 02:54 PM
Hi Michael, I think you helped the image by the crop and eliminated alot of extraneous material. I can also see more detail.One of my photo mantras is to keep it simple...