The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
I was drawn to the little pine tree (I think it’s a pinyon pine, but I guess I couldn’t swear in court..).
So tiny in this huge landscape, I have several compositions including it.
Specific Feedback
I am wondering about the crop mostly. I knew in the field that I would have to crop to get the image I wanted, I was at 400mm and couldn’t zoom in further. I originally cropped to 16x9 which was my intention, but just for fun cropped it to 17x6 and I liked it. It tells a different story, the tree doesn’t look as dwarfed, but maybe dwarfed enough, and I feel like the 17x6 is a little more of an abstraction or a slice of the landscape. I’m not sure that the top of the frame of the 16x9 is doing that much for me in terms of color and contrast anyway, and I did work with it in editing. I’m leaning more towards the pano crop…what do you think?
The title popped into my head after the pano crop. Before that it was going to be called landslide.
Any other observations about editing, color, etc I would love to hear!
Another beauty, Julie. The light is nice and soft and renders the colors of this area very accurately. You have not added a lot of contrast to the scene which I find beautiful. It’s funny, but I originally thought that the pinion tree you describe was a rock and not a tree at all. Because of how dark it is, my eye immediately goes to that spot. I only wish it was more identifiable as a tree. On your computer at home I’m sure you can blow it up big enough to discern that it’s a tree but I’m having a hard time telling it from a rock.
I like both versions presented here. The less cropped version has more of the upper scree that is so prominent in the area but it’s also a little bit plain compared to the cropped pano version. My only issue with the pano version is the ULC. It’s a very minor nit but the flow coming out of the top of the pano image is great until you get to the ULC which feels a little bit cut off. However, I do prefer it to the uncropped version as it removes the less interesting upper area of the rock wall. I cropped this to see if it was better balanced in the ULC. Let me know your thoughts. Round file it if it’s not to your liking. You won’t hurt my feelings at all.
Hi Julie, I actually like the shape and textures of the 16x9 hillside a bit more. But both are quite lovely, but I don’t get the story of the little pine so I don’t feel it needs to be emphasized as much. Which ever shape works for you they are well seen and processed.
Julie, I like both versions, but if I had to pick one, I would lean more toward the pano version. Both are beautiful. I will have to agree with @David_Haynes about the tree. I thought it was a rock. At it’s small size, I don’t think it adds anything to the image.
@David_Haynes Thank you for pointing out the ULC, I hadn’t really noticed but yes, it’s distracting! I’m glad I post here, I 'm learning a lot, thank you!
Thank you @guy and @Michael_Lowe , I’ll keep thinking about the crop, too. I’ve gone back and forth a couple times. I don’t know if it’s good that there isn’t a definitive answer or not!
As for the tree, I went into the file and targeted it a bit, but it didn’t really do much to change it’s look. It’s a little pinyon pine out there all alone. Another Rock, Another Tree…
Julie, both views look good. I think the pano crop works better because it emphasizes the contrast between the warm ridge at near the bottom and the cool slopes behind. The little pine is an interesting extra that would work better if it were lighter, but I don’t think you can dodge it without turning the darkest parts grey.
I too am enjoying both versions; each having their own strengths and impression. And this time I won’t reference anyone else but you and you’re vision.
After looking a bit, I think I might prefer the original 16x9 crop. To me, the composition is more spacial, and the tree is an added element rather than a bit more of a focus point. The slope, erosion patterns and simple geology of the upper section provides context and overall the whole tells a better nature story, I think.
The more narrow crop brings that tree more attention, but yet is still small in the frame the viewer is not sure what it is, although it’s easier to discern.
I think the bottom ridge is important in both versions; providing a composition base and further interest when exploring the scene. And perhaps to your vision and being drawn to that tree, the 17x6 version does capture that better.
I’m partial to the 16x9 crop as the top part of the other one doesn’t hold any interest. I also think I’d rather see the tree a little more to the right so it wasn’t quite so close to the edge of the frame but that’s a pretty minor nit. Overall, lovely image with wonderful soft light and color palette.
Thank you both for your thoughts!
I guess the 16x9 is winning.
It’s so funny to me that people can’t tell it’s a tree, it’s so obvious to me but I guess it’s because I was there, and I need to separate that from what it looks like in the image
You won’t hurt my feelings at all.
