This one is also from Härjedalen, Sweden. It was very windy, so I decided to try to show that in the image: A long exposure gave blurred leaves and outer parts of the tree branches.
Any comments are welcome!
Is this a composite: No
f/14, 15 sec., ISO 100, Olympus lens 12-40 at 12 mm (24 mm equiv.), ND filter, Olympus camera OM-D E-M1, tripod
I like the emotional impact of the tree together with that sky. I don’t feel the out of focus branches convey movement. I don’t know how I feel about the white stump honestly. I think the wind-blown-hair look of the tree is better conveyed by it’s shape than by the blurriness but I do agree that it does add to that look.
Hmm, not sure how I feel about the whole thing in general, Ola. But maybe this is because I always avoid any sort of movements on the leaves when I shoot trees. I will have to think about this a little more. Perhaps clouds that convey that same notion of motion help?
Ola, I have to agree with Adhika, I need to think about this a bit more, look at it again tomorrow and see what I think. It’s not how we expect to see images of trees, but I give you a lot of credit for trying something very different. I like how the motion blur looks at the tips of the branches near the top of the tree, they look like they are oscillating back and forth in a radial pattern. But it’s the look of the leaves near the bottom part of the tree that I’m struggling with more.
Maybe some of my concern is how the horizon cuts the tree in half. In that regard you broke two “rules” here, the horizon placement and the blur of the leaves. Does that make the image too unconventional overall? I need to ponder that a bit…
