It’s been a good year and a half since last venturing into the landscape gallery (generally shoot avian), but yesterday viewed an excellent 3 hour presentation by @Doug_Blunt in which he describes his take on landscape photography emphasizing visual flow, so I pulled this out of the files and thought I’d try to process it with Doug’s ideas in mind. Not sure if it worked. There is the leading line of the stump and rocks to the mountains, but perhaps the stump is too large and too bright (I did try to darken it some) and part of the root is over the mountain. Critique appreciated. Thanks.
What technical feedback would you like if any? Any
What artistic feedback would you like if any? Any
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
Canon 10D (boy is that an antique); 17-40 mm at 26 mm 1/125 f8; ISO 100
I like this. Normally I would comment that one part of the image is not in the same sense as another but here it’s so obvious that it’s actually a purposeful contrast. That is the contrast between gnarly and peaceful. The only suggestion is the WB of the sky. It’s out of whack with the cooler rest of the image. Both the clouds are too warm and the blue is not the same hue as the water. But overall I like the juxtaposition of the opposites in this image (whether intended or not).
I like the concept of this image, and no i don’t think the tree makes it too busy. And I think the composition is nicely balanced too (left/right). And there is a very strong implied diagonal line.
I think the both the color (too warm) and the luminosity (too dark) of the sky is inconsistent with the rest of the scene. Skies are generally brighter than the landscape, and that is not the case here. The sky is more cyan than the water too.
And if you don’t feel like dealing with color, then this would also make a killer B&W image, and you wouldn’t have to worry about color.
I think both Igor and Ed’s comments about the colour and luminosity of the sky relative to the water are important considerations, which can be adjusted should you decide. I would like to make a comment on composition. While I love the gnarly root, I think you have to make a choice of where to place it relative to the horizon. Either take your camera higher and get the branches below the horizon line or lower your camera and get the branches wholly above. As it is, I find the branches interrupt the flow of the image - feeling like more of a “mistake” than intentional.
The composition and image work well. I would agree with the above comments about the sky and clouds, but otherwise, no suggestions here. Go after those landscapes more often!
Agree with most that has been said so far. I think the composition works quite nicely actually. I’m not bothered by the roots/branches crossing the horizon. It would be one thing if just one was barely breaching the horizon or perilously close, but there’s enough of the tree structure above the horizon to not be an issue. At least for me.
My first reaction was also how the sky and rest of scene seemed mismatched. The crisp, cool scene from the tree thru the water and to the snow covered mountains - there is just a lot of clarity. (Looks good btw). Then the sky is much warmer and much less clarity. One would think that the same light falling on the scene would be the same in the sky. I think that’s really the only nitpick I have with this image.
I am on my laptop, so I can’t comment on color, but I really like the comp. The branches crossing the horizon don’t bother me at all. Partly, that is because of how big that root ball is, so it seems natural that part of the mountain is behind some of the roots. Besides, my eye is much more drawn to the lovely reflections of the roots in the water in the FG.
