Spring has been pretty cold and late coming this year. As a result, only a few trees have barely started to bud out yet. We also have had a long string of cloudless bluebird sky days. So I tried to come up with an idea that would take advantage of both of those issues. The spiderweb pattern of the tree branches is really only visible like this in early spring or late autumn. And the gold of the new buds was perfect for using backlight. I don’t use backlight as much as I should, and this was a good opportunity to do so.
And once again the Canon EF 16-35mm f4 lens created it’s usual awesome sunstar. The great sunstars from this lens are enough to give me pause about switching to Canon mirrorless. Does anyone out there use a Canon R5 and the RF 15-35mm lens, and know how the sunstars compare? That might be you, @Diane_Miller
Specific Feedback Requested
any critique or comments are welcome
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
Canon 5D MK4, Canon 16-35mm f4 lens at 28mm, ISO 100, 1/40 sec at f22
Awesome image Ed. Even without the sun star this would have been awesome but it takes it to another level (and I’m not a fan of su stars generally). I can’t think of a thing to suggest. This strikes me as an image of an experienced photographer.
This really has a beautiful and cheerful “good morning” feel to it. The position of the sun in the frame grabs the eye and then the dark limbs lead you up to the bursts of color. The lack of branches pushing into the bottom of the frame seems important to the success of this image. I think it’s because this allows just enough of the tree trunk and overall shape to show.
I am really liking the strong graphics and shapes of the tree branches with the leaf highlights. I am not really a sunstar fan, so that portion is not my favorite part of the image. No nits here, though. Looks good.
Yeah, sunstars can be cliche, and used as a gimmick for impact. But in this case I actually liked how the shape of the sunstar mimicked and repeated the strong radial pattern of the tree trunks . That was why I chose to include the sunstar with this particular tree.
Gorgeous! The shapes of the silhouetted branches give this lots of energy, which is accentuated by the cheerful, bright leaves and bluebird sky. This is an effective use of the sunstar - the tree is bursting into life from the power of the sun.
Beautiful image @Ed_McGuirk and I agree with the comments made thus far, especially of @Alan_Kreyger’s observation of the dynamic nature at play between the graphic lines guiding the eye upward and the sunstar pulling the eye back down. My only observation that seems a bit unusual is the ?burning and ?color shifting of the sky around the sun in the bottom part of the frame. I believe I would be tempted to burn the sky around the sun due to the competition of its brightness with the leaves above. Regardless, I suspect this was your intent, so as usual - the grain of salt applies here.
Wonderful!!! All said above! I’ve not had much success with sun stars, but I love them!
I don’t have that lens but do have the EF 16-35 II f/2.8. I’ll see what I can do comparing it with the R5 and the 5D4, but there is probably someone who can answer your question more directly.
It sounds like the EF f/4 is a great lens for sun stars. I would think it would perform similarly on the R5 with an adapter.
I’m also curious how the corner distortion of the 15-35 is for Milky Way shots, if anyone has information. My 16-35 f/2.8 II (bought new and treated like a baby) is awful, as is corner sharpness for ordinary subjects at wide apertures.
Thanks Diane. I’ve read some reviews which say that the RF 15-35mm has almost no coma (a Canon problem before), has much less vignetting than the EF 16-35mm f2.8, and less corner distortion. Sounds like the reviews think it’s the best Canon wide-angle for Milky Way. But alas, reviews rarely discuss sunstar shape, and focus mostly on how the lens handles flare instead.
thank you for your comments, I appreciate your input.
I assume you mean the sky at the top is a cooler, richer blue, as compared to the sky in the bottom quarter of the image. I think the sky is naturally brighter and warmer near the sun, as compared to the top of the sky. I did not use a polarizing filter, so that did not create uneven tones with a wide angle. I initially tried to make all the sky a more uniform color/luminosity, but it just didn’t look right to me. Is that what you were referring to Jim, or did you mean something else? I’m just curious.
While taking this, I saw this image as being about the mimicking of the shapes between the sunstar and the tree branches. But now that you make this comment Bonnie, I see a whole new story to this image. Thank you for sharing this insight.
I wasn’t referring to cool/warm spectrum, but luminosity primarily and color secondarily. Probably in the realm of nit-picking, so I apologize for that, but the luminosity around the base of the tree and bottom 1/4 of the image seems a bit darker than I would anticipate.
On my monitor (not color corrected mind you - ugh!), there appears a slight magenta cast in the light around the base of the tree.
Perhaps this was artistic intent and thus is purely subjective. These aren’t criticisms of the image, but rather observations. Again Ed, sorry for the confusion.
That makes sense. Since this was a single exposure, I exposed for the highlights in the backlit leaves, knowing the tree would go black silhouette as I wanted. The sky at the bottom was brighter than the top, and I used two Lightroom grads, brightening at the top, darkening on the bottom, in order to try to balance sky luminosity a bit. You are saying the highlight recovery at the bottom went a bit too far, and I think you may be right, I will take another stab at it later. I may want to try a radial filter highlight recovery just in the immediate vicinity of the sun, rather than a grad across the whole bottom. Thanks.
I’ve been meaning to circle back to this one Ed. I love it. It is simple, yet complex. Plain, yet elegant. Even the sun in such a non-traditional position really works here. Nicely done.
