It has been an unseasonably cold spring so far in 2021 here in Massachusetts. Thus the timing of spring growth has been running late this year. Here is an image from last week showing some early spring growth on a rainy, foggy day. The buds had just barely started forming on the trees. Similar to @Michael_Lowe recent “Parking Lot Landscapes” series, I often have more luck in woodland photography by shooting along the edges of the forest. In this case, a brush cutaway from a scenic overlook of the Quabbin Reservoir. The overlook is at the top of a hill but I walked partway down the hill and shot into the forest on the side of the clear cut.
My question is the green (crabapple?) trees in the foreground - are they an effective framing element or a too bright distraction? I tried burning them down more than this, but to me it started looking too unnatural. However, I do like the sense of depth the green trees create. What does the collective wisdom of NPN say?
Specific Feedback Requested
any critique or comments are welcome , input sought on the green trees as noted above
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
Canon 5D MK4, Canon 70-200mm f4 lens, at 82mm, ISO 800, 1/20 sec at f11
Trade you an unseasonably cold spring for an unseasonably hot one!
The background scene, with the trees just budding out is beautiful. And the foreground plants are lovely, too. But my first reaction was that foreground wall of green is overpowering the delicate background. I thought perhaps changing the tones (e.g., warming the background, cooling the foreground or desaturating the foreground) might make the foreground green less prominent, but various attempts were less than aesthetically pleasing. The nice spring greens of the foreground just didn’t look right. Maybe cropping to a pano format? Or b&w? It makes an interesting b&w (which I tried and will post if you are interested).
Hi Ed, I agree with @Bonnie_Lampley that the green foliage in the foreground is a little too intense in color, but I do like the framing it provides to the composition. I would suggest muting it slightly but keep it a little brighter than the background to maintain the separation. Lovely shot!
Bonnie, regarding a pano, I have a bunch of other shots of just the background trees (both horizontal and vertical), which I’ll probably post soon, so I have that spin covered. However you and @Jon_Norris are confirming my hunch that in this image the foreground and background need to be made more harmonious. I think cooling/de-saturating the foreground might work. These green trees were the only element that really said “Spring” in a major way and I wanted to work them into some of my images from this location.
Regarding B&W, I’d be very interested to see your B&W interpretation, if you don’t mind posting it. I’d like to see how someone as creative as you would handle it.
Ed, looking forward to seeing your photos of the BG trees, because to me that’s where all the awesomeness resides. I respect what you were going for here, but to me the bright FG feels more like a wall seperating me from entering that great forest. That’s JMHO of course.
With regards to making the fg and bg ‘harmonious’. It’s been my experience that the light made available at a parking area encourages plant growth that is normally inhibited by tall trees. Therefore the fg bright brush layer is very common when viewed from such a place. Perhaps artistically it might be better to have them of a similar tonality but the image does not look ‘strange’ or unusual as it is. On the positive side it does provides strong layer and a sense of depth due to separation. Although the White buds in the fg layer could become more visible if the foliage was darkened.
@Ed_McGuirk, so here’s my b&w idea. I really liked all the bits of brightness in both the foreground and background, so I processed it to bring those out. To bring out the bright pops in the background, it was necessary to pull up the yellow slider. That made the foreground foliage too bright, so I did another b&w conversion, just for the foreground greens (made a color selection of the greens using TK7, brushed that off the first b&w conversion, then adjusted the 2nd b&w conversion to taste). Then did a curve (held the lightest bits, darkened the rest), toning, and vignette. Oh, I also cropped it to 4:5, cutting off the left and that darkest tree (to change the ratio of forground, less, to background, more). It’s rather a dark interpretation, but that’s the vibe I got from it. YMMV.
My first reaction was that the green in the foreground was hiding some of the delicate beauty of the trees in the background. My eyes kept being drawn to the green in the foreground and being stuck there. I really like the B&W in the comments . The foreground becomes one with the background.
Yes Richard, I think this nicely sums up why I really like what @Bonnie_Lampley did with her B&W conversion. Bonnie your B&W is very well done, thank you for the idea, I like what you did. It does a better job of communicating the delicate nature of spring foliage.
@Michael_Lowe I will post one of the background only shots, which I think are much stronger than this one. I often use NPN to post the images I have nagging questions about, which I did with the foreground of this image.
@Igor_Doncov , I think that if this remains in color, darkening/desaturating/cooling the green leaves is the way to go. It’s not only less distracting, but more importantly it makes the white flowers pop more. Which is the benefit of Bonnie’s B&W treatment too. I have attached a color rework back up top next to the original for comparison . I also did a crop direction-ally similar to Bonnies B&W rework.
I do like Bonnies rework the most. It’s quite a departure from what you had in mind though. It’s really another picture, a replacement. But if it’s better …
I guess any conversion to b&w is really a do over.
I’m very late to the party here and I apologize for that but I have to say that I like the rework MUCH better along with the crop that comes with that rework. The tones are less harsh and more cohesive. The background has a painterly, soft feel to it and the foreground diminishes some of that softness in the original but the rework takes care of most of that issue.
Now, after seeing Bonnies B&W version, I think she nailed it. There is separation between the foreground and the background in that the foreground has larger and more evenly dispersed flowers and leaves and the background has that soft, muted painterly look to it that I love. Either way, this is a really beautiful scene Ed and although I’m slightly more partial to the B&W I love the rework of the original color version almost as much.
Definitely the color rework for me, Ed. I think cooling off the FG greens has added another layer to the scene and I find that it compliments all that delicate goodness of the springtime growth in the BG trees. Maybe it’s just me because several people like the B&W, but it just looks a little muddy to me and the FG trees blend more into the BG rather than separating the two. I am looking forward to the other shots of just the BG trees.
It’s interesting that the color rework seems better to some folks than the original. The color hue and saturation of the green leaves in the un-editted raw file is almost identical to the original post. I guess this is a case where I have to diverge from reality to make the rest of the image work better.
You set the white balance to create that warm raw file. You could have changed your camera setting. Raw file doesn’t equate to reality. I have found that raw files vary by sensors between cameras even when all camera settings are the same. I guess you remember how things looked when you shot it.
