Redwood Rhodies

[David_Haynes]

Critique Style Requested: Standard

The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.

Description

This image is from 2 summers ago in the California Redwoods during a very heavy fog. It was early in the morning before sunrise. This is one of my favorite trails for capturing rhodie blooms in June when they are most likely to bloom. Although it wasn’t raining it felt like it was. With the heavy fog being filtered by the enormous trees, it creates it’s own rain event from the fog. Although it looks like there is lots of light if you’ve ever shot in the redwoods, even on a sunny day, it can be very dark in the forest. Luckily, there was very little wind on this morning.

Specific Feedback

I had trouble framing this image up. I used the large tree trunk on the right and the rhodies and a smaller tree on the left. I’m wondering if the tree on the right is too heavy?
I love the tree litter on the forest floor in the foreground but I’m wondering how you feel about it. I really like that bright snapped of limb but not sure if it’s an eye sore or not. I’d love your thoughts.

Technical Details

Nikon Zii, 24-70mm @ 70mm, f/13, ISO 1000, 1/4 second, tripod

---

Critique Template

Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.

• Vision and Purpose:
• Conceptual:
• Emotional Impact and Mood:
• Composition:
• Balance and Visual Weight:
• Depth and Dimension:
• Color:
• Lighting:
• Processing:
• Technical:

[glennie (Glenys Passier)]

Wow! I’m really liking this image. The light is soft but the scene is detailed.

I can almost feel the cool mist, and I bet the smell of the Rhodies were wafting through the air. They are also adding a good contrast with the greens, which are very well handled. The big tree on the RHS does not bother me, in fact I feel it leads me to the next tree and right into the scene.

There might be another version of this image wihout that stick.

[Ed_Lowe]

Hi David,
I am loving the soft delicate light in this woodland scene! That coupled with the fog/mist and I can almost feel the cool mist on my face. I have no problem whatsoever with the tree on the right side or the downed limbs on the forest floor. Of course the combo of pink rhodies and the greens of the surrounding forest is always a winning formula. My only suggestions; just my personal opinion; would be a little lightening of the ULC and a little darkening of the bright section of the fallen branch. I hope you do not mind, but here is a rework with what I was thinking. This is a beauty.

[Bonnie_Lampley]

How lovely. The framing has a nice rhythm from the placement of the main trees. I had the same thoughts as Ed about lightening the ULC and burning (and desaturating the orange) of that snapped off branch. It really catches the eye, but in Ed’s version, with the lower luminosity it isn’t quite as strong.

[Bret_Edge]

What a fabulous scene and incredible conditions, @David_Haynes! This is an interesting and unconventional composition. In most cases I would find the cutoff tree trunk on the right to cause an imbalance but here, with all the open forest on the left AND the tremendous amount of detail to explore over there, it just works. In fact, it even acts as sort of a stopping point as my eye begins to wander, and hits the tree, it darts back to the forest on the left. I love this. I’ve got to get over there sometime to see these blooms!

[Igor_Doncov]

There are many nice elements in this image but the things you mention are problems. The tree less than the bare snag. I know it’s difficult to come up with clean compositions on that trail, especially when they want you to stay on it.

[Kerry_Gordon]

I find this a very elegant composition. I feel it is beautifully composed and I am not bothered by the concerns you touched on in the least. For me, the question always comes back to mood especially in an image like this in which there is no “story” per se. The tree on the right is a nice framing element and I wouldn’t lighten the upper left corner of the frame because it serves to balance the right and ultimately frame the lone trunk and rhododendron. As for the “litter” on the forest floor, for heaven’s sake, it’s a forest. I think as photographers and viewers of photography, especially in the digital age, we have to get over cleaning everything so that, god forbid, anything “draws the eye”. You know, I look at a lot of photography of the masters and so much of the work I look at and love would be skewered by photography club types for blowing out the lights, crushing the blacks or, god forbid, having something in the frame that “draws the eye”. I really think we have to get over ourselves and not lose sight of what we’re doing and why. I look at this image and feel that you had a clear intention, a mood you wanted to convey. In my view you’ve done a beautiful job in terms of your knowing why you’re taking the photograph in the first place and expertly conveying that mood.

[Michael_Lowe]

Hello David. What a lovely scene. The light and colors are just exquisite. And you couldn’t ask for more atmosphere. The composition withe the dominant tree on the right, while unconventional, I quite like. But. I hate it when someone says that word. It usually means something bad is incoming.
But, it seems there are yahs and nays on the light branch. I feel that even with @Ed_Lowe’s burning I feel it does grab the eye.

[David_Haynes]

Thanks to @glennie, @Ed_Lowe, @Bonnie_Lampley, @Bret_Edge, @Igor_Doncov, @Kerry_Gordon, @Michael_Lowe for your remarks. I have to say that Igor is absolutely correct when he says that you are not allowed to wander off the trail making this composition nearly impossible without including that tree on the right. Had I been able to step just a couple of feet forward I could have shot this image without the tree on the right as well as the litter on the floor. So I was left to compose an image with both in the scene. Kerry is also correct in that we have become too sensitized to even the smallest of distractions and I’m part of the problem. Like I said at the top of my post, I actually like the broken branch. I’m not exactly sure why but maybe it tells a story of how this forest rebuilds itself, fertilizes itself. It’s not a neat and pristine scene. It’s all natural and real and maybe that’s why I like it. I do in fact like the rework by Ed to tone down the orange of the major snag and I also am enjoying Michaels version and how it presents a much neater scene but I have to admit, I miss the snag in that scene. Maybe I’m weird. I knew it would be an issue for many of you though and I understand why.
Going off trail is not recommended for several reasons. It’s very steep in most places, it’s very slippery almost everywhere, and your chances of falling are pretty high. Plus those ferns are not just a foot or two high. They are about the height of my chin in most places so they are huge and trying to trample through them is very difficult as well as ruinous. Thanks again for your input here. As always, I appreciate it very much.

[John_Williams]

Kudos for staying on the trail. I remember a morning not long after I had gotten into photography chasing a sunrise at Mt. Rainier, and being amazed at how many serious photographers (judged by backpack and tripod size) were just out tromping in the meadows.

I love the classic recipe of redwood/rhodie/fog, and you’ve done an excellent job of them here.

As to the snag, I see both sides of that coin. I do think we risk going too far in trying to make nature pristine, but at the same time we want images that allow the eye and mood to flow. For me, the brightness of it here is like trying to see past an oncoming headlight and my eye does snag there. Twas this mine, I would handle it like @Ed_Lowe did, but darken it even more.

[Lon_Overacker]

David,

Beautiful and wonderfully moody redwood forest image. It’s refreshing to see the rhodies treated more as accents contributing to the bigger scene - rather than in-your-face display of the sought after flowing plant. (Of course being on my bucket list, I wouldn’t mind having an in-your-face rhodedendron in the redwood forest of my own!) The processing looks spot-on to me.

As evidenced by the varying comments, both of the large trunk on the right and the bright, broken limb, there are no right or wrong answers, I could, and do, sit in both camps. In the end, for me, it’s really boils down to what the end purpose is of your image.

IMHO, if you’re wanting to hang, or sell a large print and/or marketing as a “beautiful image of nature,” then perhaps it could be warranted to exclude the large tree and clone/mitigate the broken branch. Me, being the analytical type, would at least attempt to reduce the magnetic properties of the broken branch (different way to say “eye magnet” ha ha).

Including or not including the framing of the large tree can also be seen in different ways. Not withstanding the reality of the trail and limited viewpoints, that tree does/can work very well as not only a framing element, but also it creates depth in the image. It also of course provides detail adding to the nature story.

On the flip side, it makes sense to leave the original scene alone if you’re actually attempting to portray nature as unedited nature; the forest floor litter, the reality that forests are seemingly random, chaotic scenes. And to capture and present more towards reality isn’t a bad thing, but reflects the reality of nature.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the beauty of this image and scene, is that you can take this in any number of directions without losing the peaceful calm and tranquility that you’ve catpured.

Beautiful