Cypress trees in late afternoon light. This is a 13 image focus bracket, and thankfully, it was a windless afternoon and everything stayed still for the most part.
Specific Feedback Requested
IMHO, this image needs additional work, but I’m not sure what I need to do. To me, it looks too harsh, too stark and needs a little softening. I’ve thought about using soft focusing with it, but I wanted to get others opinions first. Any advice would be appreciated.
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
Fuji GFX50S
1/4 @ f/8, 100 ISO
Polarizer
Tripod
Capture One Pro 21, Helicon, PS, TK’s Luminosity Masks, Luminar (for enchancing fine details), Topaz Noise Reduction
I saw this earlier and I agree with you that something is missing. The composition is really good so it isn’t that. It lacks emotion. It’s too literal. But why? Stronger directional light may have helped. Perhaps a focus stack was not ideal and some out of focus elements would be good. Perhaps everything but the dominant tree should be made darker. Personally I think the focus stack is taking some of the mystery out of the image.
Having spent some time in cypress swamps, I’ve come to realize that many of the best images have a lot of separation between the trees. Whether it’s just distance or fog filling in, separation shows these beauties best IMO. There isn’t a lot of that here. My eyes keep going to the bright green and the fallen tree or branch that has gotten stuck. I love scenes like this and have a shot of a stuck log like this myself (but it was foggy and before sunrise). But we can’t order up the conditions we want (grumble, grumble).
Following onto what Igor pointed out about its documentary quality, maybe choose just a few images to stack where the sharpest bits are with the main tree. Or choose a single image. This would knock down the weight of some of the others crowding it. You could also try darkening those areas to further reduce their effect on the overall tone. Also some artificial blur would be an interesting experiment.
I’ll jump on the train and agree. Working with dodging and burning to help add depth seems to be the most helpful technique to me outside of allowing some background OOF areas with your focus stack. Like Igor and Kristen, I like the composition.
To me there are three main elements: the big foreground tree, the slanting tree at the right for framing, and the bunch in the mid ground which have the foliage. With that in mind, you might crop in some from the left or not; just a thought as I’m typing.
Focusing on the three main elements, you could add depth by limiting the focus stack to the fore- and mid-ground and then burning the somewhat OOF background. The other thing this would help with is to isolate the big foreground tree because it kind of blends into the trees to the left.
Thanks for sharing. I think you can take this in a really neat direction and have a really great image when you’re done!
I think Adam has hit upon the things that resonate most with me. If this were my image, I would want the viewer looking at the elements Adam mentioned. Rather than emphasizing these elements by blurring the background, I might consider doing it via manipulating luminosity through dodging and burning. I think the composition works well, but I would darken everything but the elements that you want to emphasize. It’s a more high contrast look than your original treatment, but I think it creates more separation of the important trees.
I think the original image is superb! No other adjustments are necessary.
You pre-visualized and made focus brackets for a reason. When you processed the file, again, with the pre-visualization in mind, it worked and worked well. You could have seen the original setting differently and made different decisions.
We are all singular, and thus the other comments are just as valid as mine.
I feel that there are infinite ways of seeing, interpreting, and capturing that raw scene. What your gut remarked at the time is what we should follow.
I am going to agree with @paul_g_wiegman on this one. I quite like this image and like it as originally presented. The diagonal branches in the back really work well to create depth and very subtly move me through the image. This one is working really well for me.
I very much enjoy the result of the focus stacking, which makes me want to paddle way past the back of the scene. A loss of clarity would tend to keep my imagination in the foreground.
I noticed that the main tree had no right left shading, unlike most of the other trunks. In the attachment, I reduced exposure on that right side, and, to lesser degree, on some other trunks.
Hi Igor. Are you suggesting that I propose changes when I don’t think any are needed or perhaps you are saying “leave the image as is because I like it as originally presented” is not “advice”? I find your post to me in reply a bit confusing. I am not sure what you are suggesting to me.
I am saying that the post states that Bill is unhappy with his image and is asking how to change it. Responding with ‘its fine’ is not addressing his request. If you think it’s fine then you have no suggestions and there is nothing to write.
@Igor_Doncov , thanks for letting me know your opinion on my comments. I will leave my input on the image as originally stated and Bill can completely ignore it if he so chooses (as is the case with all comments on all images). But thanks for your advice on the matter.
It wasn’t just your comments but also the one you agreed with that dealt with Bill’s vision. Nobody gave suggestions to modify his vision. They are just answering his question.
I don’t see any problem with Paul or Harley’s replies. Sometimes when you stare at an image for too long you can get tunnel vision and think there is something missing, so it can be valuable to hear that it does resonate with others and that no improvements are needed. Bill can take all these opinions and then make his own choice, one of those is to keep it the way it is.
@Igor_Doncov , @Kris_Smith, @Adam_Bolyard , @Ed_McGuirk , @paul_g_wiegman , @Dick_Knudson , @Harley_Goldman , @David_Kingham - Thank you all for your comments, suggestions, reworks, and advice! I didn’t mean to start a range war, and I appreciate every response. I haven’t decided what I’m going to do with this yet. I still feel something is missing, but the positive reaction online has been much stronger than usual; resulting in two sales already and I haven’t even printed it yet. That never happens so quickly! Given the positive reaction online, I’m going the think a while before doing anything. If others are happy enough to purchase it the way it is, maybe I need to just learn to be unhappy with it myself and not look a gift horse in the mouth. Anyway, thank you again for all your comments!
Seems like enough reason to leave it as is right now. I think there’s something to be said about how we can start thinking an image we make is not as good as it really is because we’ve spent too much time with it. Sometimes letting it marinate is the best thing to do. Cheers on a nice image wherever you take it.
No. I don’t think Paul got it at all. Paul’s suggestion was to discard suggestions because they don’t reflect the authors vision. That we were all pulling in our own direction. The opposite actually occurred. They were given to help the author fulfill his vision. The author clearly is asking members to help him do that.
I brought it up because it was a critical point in this thread because it then took a different direction and nothing further was offered. Wait until you learn to like it - doesn’t seem like a fruitful direction to me.
I’m writing this because my points got misconstrued (perhaps I wasn’t clear enough) and my objections misunderstood. I hope they are clear now.
Your version is still the best, Bill. Although I could see adding a bit more of a vignette to focus the viewer on the main trunk. Although I think it looks pretty good already.
