Due to a rainy spring, 2019 was a banner year for Mountain Laurel in Massachusetts. Mountain Laurel or Kalmia latifolia is related to rhododendron, and grows in mountainous forest areas. This flower was everywhere in June, but I had to work hard to find clean shooting locations, because it is usually found in dense tangles within the forest. This was taken in one of the few spots that had a nice open view into the foggy forest. With lots of trees directly at my back, I was forced into shooting this with a wide focal length to get in this much of the forest, since I was trying to create a wide view. Most of my other Mountain Laurel images are done using much longer focal lengths to extract shots from the forest.
For whatever reason, I never correct perspective via warping in my processing (being lazy I guess). But in this case the tree on the left was leaning so much that I thought I would experiment and give it a try, using the Vertical Transformation tool in Lightroom. The transformed image cropped out the very bottom of the trees, so I actually masked in the area at and below the base of the trees from the original un-warped image.
I am looking for input on
Do you prefer it warped or not warped ? or are both okay ?
Do you think my first effort at this was technically and aesthetically successful or not ?
Do you think this should have been corrected more ?
@David_Kingham, if you wouldn’t mind giving me your $0.02 on this I would appreciate it, since I am outside my comfort zone here.
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
see above
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
Canon 5D MkIV, Canon 24-70mm f 2.8 lens, at 27mm, ISO 400, 1/8 sec at f16
Ed,
I really love this scene and appreciate the challenge it was to find such a wonderful composition. I prefer the un-warped image for the extra breathing room you have around the Mountain Laurel near the edge of the frame on the left. I also prefer the overall lack of compression in the original. If not presented side by side it may not be as noticeable. I am not bothered by the wide angle distortion in the original. I am interested to see what others with more warping experience have offer.
Beautiful work!
Beautiful image, Ed. The colors really pop under this soft lighting without looking over-cooked. The brighter section in the background at top center really adds some wonderful depth. Processing looks great and your warping was very subtle. I guess if I had to pick I slightly prefer the warped version.
Ed,
I am voting for the warped version although I am fine with the un-warped one as well. My thought process has been that some trees in the forest are not straight in the real world as they contort for the sunlight under the canopy. The light fog sets the table for me and that one section of light in the BG along the top edge is very captivating. You had some prime conditions for catching the mountain laurel in peak condition. I would say that your effort was successful.
Agree with @Alan_Kreyger that the non-warped is preferable…for the same reason. The warped version takes the flowers to the edge of the image creating too much visual tension at the margin for my eye. The vantage point is elevated and that comes across based on the distance from the ground. So the “distortion” from the wide-angle lens to me is consistent with the position from which the image was taken. Living in the appalachian mountains, I have some familiarity with how difficult it is to find a wide scene such as this and feel the shot stands just great on its own. I think the whole package, including the subtle fog and background lit forest is a real winner. I wouldn’t change a thing and consider this a highly successful image. Personal taste would add a bit of midtone contrast, perhaps burning the brighter tree trunks in the foreground to better pull the viewer deeper in to the scene. Two very big thumbs up from me!
Stunning image Ed! I personally don’t like the trees falling outward in the original, but I agree that you lost the breathing room on the left. Here’s a quick and dirty of what I would do:
I started with the original and used the warp tool in Photoshop instead which gives you more control, then I did a content aware crop to bring that space back. It would take some work to make it look clean and natural, but I much prefer the straight trees myself. I think we as photographers start to accept the wide angle distortions, but the average joe would question what’s wrong with the trees.
I look at all three versions and I will go with either the original unwarped version or David Kingham’s version. I am not bothered by the slanting trees. It feels natural given how the trees on the right are also slanted. The trunks also create “diagonals” converging on the laurels making them the centerpiece of the image. It feels quite dynamic that way.
A beautiful image. I correct most all of my wide angle shots but have had some of the same issues you faced, re: crop. I was VERY impressed with David’s version and must learn that technique. Concerning your versions, I do prefer the corrected version best, even with the space limitations. Very nice.
The unwarped image is the more creative and unique of the three and therefore my favorite. Rather than a picture of subjects it gives a sense of a user looking at them from inside out, if that makes any sense. Another words the perspective of the user is being shown and that’s a valuable asset. There is a greater sense of space in this version as well.
The greens in the lower center and right are a bit strong for my taste.
Jim McGovern you are right, it was very hard to find open, bigger scenes like this within the forest. I have shot something similar to this with rhododendrons and redwoods at Redwoods NP, but there the trees are spaced out much wider apart, with a relatively clean understory. Here in New England the forest is much denser, and has a cluttered understory. I spent five days shooting mountain laurel, found literally dozens of locations with it, and maybe only 3 spots where I had clean forest views like this. It tends not to grow along roadsides or meadow edges, it prefers the forest interior.
@David_Kingham a special thanks to you, I love how your rework turned out. It’s a much better result than my clumsy attempt in Lightroom. I am going to have to bite the bullet and learn how to use the warp tool, the result you produced here looks amazingly good. Thank you for showing me the creative possibilities with this image, you have inspired me to dive into giving this a try on my own.
This is a stunning forest scene Ed. I like how the mist and distant light form a perfect backdrop. My preference is to see straight trees but as Alan mentioned, the warped version brings the trees to close to the left edge. I think David’s technique worked well.
Here is a rework, taking a stab at addressing the leaning tree via the Photoshop Warp tool instead of Lightroom Perspective. I was able to keep more of the left side intact. I also reflected @Jim_McGovern suggestions to add a little midtone contrast, and burn down the tree trunks, as well as @Igor_Doncov suggestion to back off the green leaf saturation at the bottom. Thanks for all the input everyone.
For starters, you have a gorgeous image from which to work from. The flowering Mountain Laurel are captured beautifully in a great part of the forest and the fog of course brings this all together. Processing is excellent as we’ve come to expect from you!
As far as the distortion goes, I would first say that had I only seen one version, I would be happy with that. Putting them side by side forces the viewer to take sides, so to speak.
Here’s my first impression. Not sure if this has been mentioned previously. To my eye, the warped or corrected version (your first) makes the perspective more at eye level. Not sure if I can explain this, but the bit of correction brings this closer to what you might see with a longer lens captured from a bit further back. In the original, distorted version, as the viewer I feel the perspective is from a slightly higher vantage point and looking more down on the scene rather than across. Does that make sense? I think I kinda like this uncorrected perspective better. And I guess like David mentions, many photographers have simply accepted the wide angle distortion as natural.
Having said that, if I were to have a print hanging above the couch in the living room, I think I would prefer David’s rendition in terms of correcting the leaning trees.
A gorgeous scene worth every effort to make it its best.
Thanks for the comment’s Lon. In fact it does make sense because I actually was standing on a small rise about 10 feet back and 4 feet above the base of the nearest trees. The whole scene gently runs downhill, which is the only reason I got that light glow through the fog. After thinking about it more, I like it both ways. But in the end, to me this image is about the fog, the light, and peering into the depths of a forest, the shapes of the trees are secondary at best.
I like this discussion. I couldn’t quite figure out what wasn’t quite right here, but the falling-outward trees seems to be it. The flowers with the tree trunks makes a nice comp. I like the fog in the background and might actually think about enhancing it a bit to make the foreground trunks and flowers stand out more.
Thanks for the comments Tony. What do you mean specifically about enhancing the fog? Do you mean making it more diffuse, and how would you suggest doing that from a processing standpoint?
This is a nice one, Ed! I think I’d just recommend you darkening the bottom a little bit since the dirt doesnt add much to the scene, I’d just subdue it.
