jeff.grant 0 Posted March 14, 2011 Here is the reworked version. Many thanks for the feedback. Your comments are most welcome, thanks. Link to comment
stp 6 Posted March 14, 2011 I think I prefer a more integrated look throughout the photo. The trees in front are now very distinctly different from those in the back. Of course, some viewers will respond, "Exactly!" It's all very subjective. Link to comment
jeff.grant 0 Posted March 14, 2011 Thanks Steve. It is indeed subjective. It's amazing what a little fiddling can do to change the feel of an image. Link to comment
color 3 Posted March 18, 2011 After looking over the grayscale variations you've posted my favorite is the "laurel hill b&w" version. I like the sense of depth it has.This version generally has a nice look, but the lower trunks of the distant trees are pretty unsatisfying for me, and the image would be better off without them. The bits of the distant trees' branches detract too. Link to comment
jeff.grant 0 Posted March 18, 2011 Thanks for the feedback, folks. Chuck, I was wondering how this would play. I wanted to do something different but suspected that the BG may not be popular. It's great to be able to get feedback like yours. It helps enormously. Link to comment
color 3 Posted March 18, 2011 I just realized that the critique I gave most recently on this image was based on looking at it on my uncalibrated monitor at work. Now that I see it on my home setup, which is calibrated, the distant trees' trunks are much more visible, whereas at work they were mostly washed out. I guess I should learn the lesson that almost nobody can count on anybody seeing anything alike, just for technical reasons, let alone personal taste. It's a tough thing to remember. It even makes a difference which browser you're using (really). Apple's Safari is much better than Internet Explorer at displaying my images like I see them before I upload them. Link to comment
jeff.grant 0 Posted March 18, 2011 Too true, Chuck. I use Safari, a calibrated Eizo CG monitor, and always upload with embedded profiles. What the viewer then sees is a massive unknown. At least, it looked OK when it left me.It's also one of the dangers of selling prints. People choose from your site and then may end up getting something quite different when the print arrives. Link to comment
Karl Schuler 48 Posted March 19, 2011 Interesting discussion. Jeff, I am sure, the prints people get from you will be a surprising revelation and never a deception ;-).From this series I like most the two photos in square format. I know how difficult it is to get a good composition with trees standing at different distanced and for my taste (and on my not calibrated screen) in the square photos you have managed a very harmonious overall view. B/W and color give a different feeling and have both their own merits.Kind regards. Karl Link to comment
jeff.grant 0 Posted March 19, 2011 Thanks Karl, the squares are my favourites too by a long way. It is surprisingly hard to find a good composition with trees. I took quite a few shots on the day, but the square stood out from the rest. Link to comment
jkilgo 0 Posted April 17, 2011 I like this...very haunting. The tones and textures are wonderful. Link to comment
richard_john_edwards 0 Posted August 19, 2011 This is Australia, so hard to photograph well, you have done an excellent job here. Link to comment
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now