| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2007 05:00:26 PM · #26 |
I'm a huge fan of tree-photos, I gave your image in the challenge a 7, it's a good image but there was something that made some kind of tension or something, maybe something missing... I have to say after seeing your three tree version that I know now what was missing.
I understand that the three-tree version needs a little better pp and you are mainly asking about the composition...
There's nothing wrong about the other's opinions in my mind, this is just how I feel about it... :-)
- please let me know if you finish the pp work on it and upload in your portfolio. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 05:57:42 PM · #27 |
| Two trees with the reflection is much stronger IMHO. I voted it a 10 as well. Great find! It's amazing how such a seemingly innocent looking scene can make such a powerful image as yours does. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 06:01:12 PM · #28 |
I think the two is better IMHO. It might be because the two trees are quite similar so that you almost get two "reflections". One in the water, the other in how the two trees mirror each other.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 06:10:41 PM · #29 |
This is not my type of photograph...
But that is because I look for the grand in grandiose. That is my natural predisposition.
However, in this photograph, you have found peace and beauty in the mundane. That is a real achievement.
Having said that, I find this entry truly inspiring, subtle and nearly something that cannot be improved upon. The "two" works. The comp and crop works. The b/w works. This should be a lesson for those of us (guilty!) who are always trying to one-up ourselves and what we shoot. Sometimes it takes much less...
|
|
|
|
02/08/2007 06:16:53 PM · #30 |
Wow...thanks for all the responses. I have to say that I'm really surprised by the reaction this shot has received. I thought it was a nice shot, but I expected mid-5's to mid-6's tops. If I was voting on it, I probably would have given it a 6. I have many shots of my own that I like better :)
The comments comparing the two variations of the location are interesting. I still like the entry better than the full 3-tree version, but it's always fun to hear how others might have handled a particular shot and why.
Thanks for all of your ideas and comments. |
|
|
|
02/08/2007 06:42:09 PM · #31 |
three trees. the balance is there but it is also a bit twisted. enough to make you wonder. the difference in the tilt of the trees works as well as the difference in the distance between them. i would like to see a version processed the same as the entry for better comparison. but i still think the three trees makes for a stronger composition.
i didn't read past the first post of the thread... just my thoughts. fine job and congrats !
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:15:21 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Ben:
Normally i'd say three for a nice balance, but in this case your two tree'd shot looks better. I think it's because the third tree isn't as symetrical as the other two.
Great shot by the way, well deserved ribbon. |
This is how I feel, as well.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 12:52:41 PM · #33 |
Okay, why are two of the branches in the top left tree disconnected?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:10:06 PM · #34 |
i think it's snow in the crotch of the branches. maybe the motion of the water hides it in the reflection.
might also be the upper part of the image was edited more aggressively than the bottom part. mainly sharpening possibly making it appear more obvious.
look at the three trees version for comparison.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Okay, why are two of the branches in the top left tree disconnected? |
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 18:10:51.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 07:59:14 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by soup:
i think it's snow in the crotch of the branches. maybe the motion of the water hides it in the reflection.
might also be the upper part of the image was edited more aggressively than the bottom part. mainly sharpening possibly making it appear more obvious.
look at the three trees version for comparison.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Okay, why are two of the branches in the top left tree disconnected? |
|
No, seriously.
 |
|
|
|
02/10/2007 08:34:28 AM · #36 |
i see what you're atling about. i think it's snow. those are the areas i was looking at last night.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2007 05:34:04 PM · #37 |
I didn't do any specific editing to the tress at all. Anything that affected the trees was done to the whole shot - levels, etc. I don't even think I used sharpening at all. I did use a low opacity diffuse glow which does funny things to snow sometimes. I posted my original in the "before and after" thread which shows high score and ribbon winners originals and entries for comparison.
Actually, now that I think about it...I did skew the left side up just a bit to bring up the horizon (top of the hill) - as it sloped a bit downward in the original. I didn't think that the tree was involved with that - but I suppose it's possible.
Originally posted by soup:
i see what you're atling about. i think it's snow. those are the areas i was looking at last night. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/13/2025 03:57:09 AM EDT.
