This is the second of three images in this Larkspur patch from May. I was trying for a sun star, but I’m so slow I kept losing the star as I tried to compose. I finally gave up, and just went with the sun behind the trunk of the tree.
Specific Feedback Requested
Does the lack of a sun star make a significant difference in your appreciation of the image? As with the last image, does the color balance feel about right? (This was taken about 30 minutes prior to the last image.) As always, any and all comment and thoughts are welcome.
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
NIKON Z 7II
NIKKOR Z 20mm f/1.8 S
1/15 sec. at f/5.0 and ISO
Truth in Blending Statement: Five images blended for depth of field with Helicon Focus 7.
This one has a nice uplifting feel and mood to it. With regards to the sunstar, I appreciate the image much more without it. It is strictly personal, but I find sunstars kind of cliche and am not a fan of them in general. The light rays work well here and the balance looks good to me.
To me the color, WB, dynamic range processing are equally as good as in your prior image, in other words very well handled. The lack of a sunstar does not bother me, in fact I think it’s helpful not to have it here. A full sunstar would grab a lot of visual attention , and to me it makes more sense to keep the viewer focused on the goodness of the flowers and dappled light below. And you have a hint of sunstar rays anyways, just enough to create the upwards diagonal visual flow that you wanted.
Your most recent light in the forest images remind me of @Ben_van_der_Sande’s work here at NPN. Of course an alder forest is different from his Netherland forests. I really like how the sunlit plants stand out against the darker trees behind them. I think you did that in your previous image as well but not so prominently. Would a similar look to the blue flowers in the lower right work as well? Or would that look fake?
I am of the same opinion. Perhaps it’s an unfair bias. I think that if you like them more power to you. I usually don’t comment because of how much others like them. Same with rainbows, strategic moons, etc.
Agree that the softer rays around the tree trunk suit the image more than a sunstar would. I like those for certain things, but here it would be too harsh and crisp. The gentle light is the star here and the colors are natural looking to me, although I think some of the shadows are lifted a bit too much, particularly in the tree trunks in the distance. You could experiment with darkening the left side a bit to emphasize the sun breaking through the trees. Gently though.
Personally, I love sunstars, but they have to fit the image. In this case, I think it would have drawn too much attention away from the lovely lighting and FG flowers. The sunrays peaking around the tree look great. Lovely image.
John,
Who needs a sunstar when you have light and rays like this! As far as the color balance it looks spot on to me. This is a great companion piece to your last post. Here again you handled the lighting beautifully. This is very inviting and what an enchanted forest would look like. No suggestions from me.
John, I can take or leave a sun star in an image. As has already been mentioned, they grab a lot of viewer attention which can be great with an image or detract from an image. You have beautiful bleeding sunlight wrapping itself around that tree trunk and casting warm glow in the foreground. I think that fact that you wanted a star burst but it didn’t materialize is of little consequence. The only nit I have is the greyish blue in the sky just left of the sun along the top of the image so my thinking is that it could be a little bit warmer. I might warm that bleeding sunlight just a little bit as well but overall, I find the white balance pretty spot on and am enjoying this woodland scene John.
