This is one of my first attempts at woodland photography. There were so many of these trees but so few in the open, lots of brush.
Type of Critique Requested
Aesthetic: Feedback on the overall visual appeal of the image, including its color, lighting, cropping, and composition.
Emotional: Feedback on the emotional impact and artistic value of the image.
Specific Feedback and Self-Critique
I’ve looked at woodland images on the internet, most I just don’t get but find some really outstanding. I really don’t know what to think about this image, I kind of like it but really wonder if it is worth showing.
Hey Gary,
Welcome to NPN.
Woodland can be tricky!
One thing I try to watch out for is the canopy. You see those two bright spots upper left and upper right where the canopy is exposed - that’s the first thing the eye is going to look at so you might try cropping those out!
Otherwise, I feel like it’s a cool looking tree, but I’m not sure there’s enough visual interest here to hold my attention. I’m also finding that sapling thing lower left to be an eyesore, especially since there’s a bright spot that draws attention to it - you could burn that a bit which could help.
Great to see you post an image. This is certainly a grand old oak - and a great one at that - even though it seems to be more resting, than it is standing tall. Certainly looks alive and well though. You’ve done well to isolate this tree from most all the clutter and distractions, so good job framing this one.
I do agree with Matt on the bright corners. Maybe it’s a perceived thing, but based on the brighter grasses in the background, this appears to be rotated a little bit. So with those two things, I went ahead and made a quick edit, cropping out the top and rotating. Which required some content-aware fill on the outer canvas. Lastly, I tried to bring up the shadows of the big trunk and branches. And I also noticed a red cast on most of the tree and so I painted on a mask after adjust the color balance in the midtones and shadows; quick edit, so not great.
Lastly - not sure if you inted to post in Abstract category. I can certainly see the abstract, chaotic nature of this old oak. But not abstract in the sense we don’t know what it is. I’m sure it’s ok here, but if you want, we can move this to the Landscape category. No biggie though.
Thanks Matt and Lon. Lon, I like the way you cropped it getting rid of the bright spots. I really need to work on learning how to edit digital images. I probably should have put it in the landscape category also, would you move it please.
No worries Garry. I went ahead and moved it for you.
Hey, I’m an old film guy too - although pretty much exclusively color - I never wanted to do darkroom work because I didn’t want to be stuck there - I would rather be out in nature taking pictures! So for me I learned a long time ago to work on “digital images” when processing scanned color transparencies. It’s been a long, slow learning curve - best advice, start and learn one thing at a time… pretty much impossible to learn it all at once! But we’re here to help so don’t hesitate to ask some questions in the discussion forums. Lots of folks ready and willing to help.
I like trees like this that have been knocked down by a major wind storm but still have enough root to keep growing, I like how the new limbs change direction and continue to grow toward the light, it nearly always makes for very interesting shapes as well as interesting stories about their life.
Some folks can even look at the size of the limbs that are now growing vertical to estimate “when” that major wind storm changed it’s life.
I must admit that I’m with you on that statement, and this image of yours falls into one of the “outstanding” ones because of it’s shape and because of the story behind it.
I’m one of those people that feels the need for some manmade element(s) because they always have a story that goes beyond nature.
To me, it’s very rare to see “Raw Nature” without the presence of mankind nearby.
That said, there are places that are extremely remote with no manmade elements but we rarely get to see them, but when we do, those are the images that are part of the outstanding IMHO.
Mankind and nature do coexist and there’s always a story about that coexistence, whether we choose to show that part of the story or not is individual.
The key to a good woodland image (which most people don’t get) is to preserve the natural chaos of the woods while at the same providing some loose structure to the image. In this case you chose to do a portrait of a tree within the woods. It’s a fine image but I don’t feel it captures the nature of woods. I’m assuming from your comments that that’s what you are after. If not, then disregard my comments.
Igor, I think you hit it right on. I seem to be trying to take the tree out of the forest not making it a part of the forest. That is why I probably don’t get a lot of woodland images as the old saying goes “You can’t see the forest for the trees”. This will give me a new perspective when I try again. Still, the more I look at it, I still think it might have some merit but not sure why.
It has a lot of merit. I wasn’t implying it didn’t. I’m just passing on what I’ve discovered. I studied Eliot Porters approach to woodland scenes and came to that conclusion. But even his images had different approaches to woodlands. I have some examples on my backup disk of what I mean. Will try to post them later.
Certainly looks alive and well though. You’ve done well to isolate this tree from most all the clutter and distractions, so good job framing this one.