Ubud Bali Indonesia

A lotus garden.

I like the composition and treatment.

Just a startlingly beautiful composition that appeals to me very much. This seems like a natural for color; I wonder why you decided to go with b&w. (Not that I don't like the monochrome. Just curious.)

Jack, In colour the vibrant green along with the pink blossom in the foreground and the browns and greys of the background somehow made it feel like two images at odds with each other. In monochrome the flow from foreground to background felt more organic and smooth. Also from a processing point of view, the image was quite contrasty having been taken in bright, albeit still morning, light conditions. I am most adept at using the selective contrast controls and sliders in Silver Efex to get the tonality I want so that factored in. Somewhere early on in my processing I will usually pull down the saturation to zero to see how the image would look in B&W. In this case it looked better so I proceeded with that in mind.

I actually think one of the key ways the photo works is that it looks so much like a made-for-color scene, done in black and white. So, in a sense, it starts out by thwarting expectations, though it also stands on its own and I think the eye is led from foreground to background as you suggest. I think your processing has brought out textures and done so in an exaggerated yet still organic fashion so, though to me it has a somewhat hyper-real look to it, that seems in keeping with the content, which has a richness and depth aided by your perspective and composition.

Thinking a little more about the impact this photo is having is maybe something similar to what I find in the paintings of Rousseau, who interestingly paints in tropical environments as well, though of course in color. And that's a certain lush flatness, so that here my eye goes from foreground up to background rather than back to background, the depth not being nearly as important as the rise. It's interesting that in dealing with what you said was a contrasty print, you've evened out the lighting, though with still obvious variation, in a way that plays with my eye this way. Where I might expect the three very vertical trees to divide the foreground and background, instead they seem a part of each and I'm drawn more and more to the surface, where the textures are anyway. So it all seems to work together.

Good point about the flatness; I noticed the same thing myself. The comparison to the work of Rousseau is right on.

While Rousseau did not come to mind when working on this I can see the reference.  The flatness here does make the image go up rather than back and the scene itself being a steep incline makes that seem logical. I hoped that the trunk of the one tree on the left being visible all the way down to the lotus garden and all the way up to the sky would tie the elements together. When working on the image I blended multiple version on different layers using gradients masks pulled down vertically. I then used brushes to selectively combine various degrees of real and hyper-real processing of the elements in the image.  

The first thing I notice is that the texture of the leaves front and center at the bottom mirrors the texture of the stone wall. It brings to life the concept of "found in nature" even as applied to a man-made structure. Great work.

 

Cheers ~

Alberta

Gordon - this is the third time that I have stopped by and wondered what I could write that might be constructive that had not already been said. 

 

Firstly, I love the scene and the image. In one of your statements you mentioned that you converted to B&W because it reduced the probability that the viewer would see it as two images.  While I don't see it as two images I am very much drawn to the flower and the large leaves and that, to me. is the main attraction and would go so far as to say that it is the main subject of the image.

Since I consider it to be the main subject, then anything else is a supporting cast which should not demand equal time or attention. This type of thinking leads me to a major crop which would be in a square format and include the bottom half.

 

Thinking that a square crop was too radical, I came up with a compromise that left the image in its original state, but, I darkened and added a bit more contrast to the background portion that was neither flower nor leaves. By making that part slightly darker, I feels it brings a bit of increased tonal range (more aesthetically pleasing?) and brings slightly less attention (lighter attracts the eyes) to that part.

 

I hope that my comment is simply food for thought and as I always indicate,  it is not a recommendation because at the end of the day, your judgement is final since it is your image. 

 

All the very best,

 

 

Alberta,

I had not made the connection between those two textures until you mentioned it, as always you have a good eye for detail.

 

Tony,

Thanks for taking the time to rework the image and offer suggestions.  As it turns out, when I recently got around to printing this image I did slightly darken the upper portion, though not to the extent that you did. I however found that both in my change and in yours the sky became too dark and looked unnatural. For my print I masked the sky separately and lightened it which seemed to fit better with the hard shadows of the foreground and also fixed the vignetting in the upper corners.

I know that some people do not like having others offer suggested changes via image reworks. I am not one of those people, so always feel free to download and adjust my images to illustrate your point. Again thanks for the input.

OK and have a great day!

great frame Gordon --- and right on commentary!