Oak in pine

I really, really would like feedback on this, good or bad as I feel

it sits on a fence between hot and naff. To cut a long story short

this is at the limits of Velvias abilty to record light and shade.

My PS skills are rudimentary. I would be delighted if somebody would

do a little work on it for me and see what could be achieved. I

think the transparency is stunning.

I like it Ian, but i think a cloudy/bright day would day would perhaps benefit it more? Nice perspective regardless anyway!

I'm assuming the original has more detail and that the jpeg compression has made it look this unfocused( similiar problem with my latest). Despite the good things about this site, its not really suited to certain types of high detail compositions, is it? An experienced photographer might be able to look beyond the jpeg and see what the original would look like, but the rest of us don't have that luxuary. But I'll try anyway. I do get bored of all the pines in this country, their shapes are just so limiting, but your using them in a interesting way here, what we used to have, and what the forestry commission lumbers us with now. I think the shadow on the left of the oak is a problem for me, though.

The first tree is nicely lighted. Personally I would leave out a (big) part of the upper trees.

Yes quite right it has certainly suffered in compression. The original trasparency is astonishingly detailed and reveals detail even in the darkest areas. I suspect this may have exceeded the limitations of my Epson 3200 flat bed scanner. C'est la vie. I can't really expect people to look beyond what is revealed.

I have since made a photo which had a similar problem. I have tried to work on it with an image software before have PhotoShop, but with no satisfactory result. Perhaps I will try something with your photo which seems have a good potential.

 

And now, after thank you for your rating and comments on my spiderweb photo, allow me to bawl you out. You demand feedback on this photo, but I note that you leave very few ratings and comments on the other members photos. Of course, you are not obliged to, but one of the interests of photo.net is this sort of exchange. But I have no grudge against you for your photos are really superb.

Hi Henri, demand, is perhaps a little strong. Certainly feedback is of great interest to anyone interested in intelligent observations. I confess I stand guilty as charged with respect to infrequent ratings/comments. My only excuse save for the usual, young children, shift work, apathy, is that I only rate those pictures that truly excite me, (my ratings average is very high). I don't usually see the point in echoing other photographers comments even when the pictures are extraordinarily good. I hope that the comments I do make are viewed by others as considered and worthwhile. All the best Ian Cameron.

Hi Ian, you are excused. My remark was just to provoke you a little. About your photo, I don't have work on it with Photoshop but with Paintshop (an ancient and not very high-performance version), and here is what I have do with it. Do you think it is better ?

I have increased the contrast and decrease a bit the brightness, increase the colour saturation and the luminance, as well as the shadows.

Thankyou Henri, this is indeed an improvement so often I try to reveal details in the shadows and i think this is the mistake I made in this case. The picture is about contrast after all. I think your version is very much superior to mine, though different from the original transparency where I seem to retain the saturation and yet still see all the shadow details. thankyou for your efforts.