After the burning . . .

[gahspidy]

This is a shot taken from the Nature Preserve here in brooklyn. the parks dept. burns down areas of the preserve every so often in a revitalization process.
I had just missed the lighting I wanted but tried to make up for it in pp.
What do you think?
thanks.

[Didache]

I think this is a cracker of an image. It's simple, effective, and beautifully composed. I especially like the way the clouds form a diagonal pattern left to right which accentuates the main tree and the smaller bush which fills the empty space. Unusually (for me) I even like the sepia toning. It's an elegant photograph.

Mike

[Greg McCary]

If you did anything to the sky I don't see it. I agree with Mike with his critique. The composition is slendid as usual. I think it has a sureal, another world feel. It also creates a lonely, isolated mood. It has a very nice artistic touch to it. Well done.
Greg

[readingr]

Gary,

You could have fooled me. The lighting looks excellent and the composition as always is spot on.

Mike's already commented about the clouds, but for me everything seems to fall into the correct place, e.g. the branches reaching into the empty part of the sky, the separation of the stuble from the reeds and the reeds from the base of the trees.

Nicely captured.

Roger

[Overbeyond]

Hello Gary
I find the colouring very interesting; it seems to graduate from greyish at the bottom to the sepias elsewhere. I really like seeing the fully grown plants and the stark stuble remaining after the burning in the foreground. Very pleasing to the eye.
Tom

[swmdrayfan]

Gary,
What I like best about this is the 'triangulation' formed by the two trees, and the sense of depth and distance they create. They compliment each other and the whole scene very well.
John

[mtbbrian]

Very Stark!
I like the composition, the two trees create a great balance.
I have never been to Brooklyn, but I am amazed to see that such a place exixts in such an urban area.
Brian
:thumbsup:

[gahspidy]

Thanks for the comments all.
Mike . . . I'm happy this works for you. I usually don't like sepia tones myself, but every now and then an image seems to compel me to bring it on. This is one of those scenes that i feel had so much more potential than what I got here, and so I'm feeling the need to get back and try again. thanks for the time

Greg . . .Actually, I did not do anything to the sky. mostly fg work, other than the sepia toning. Thanks for commenting.

Roger . . You mention the seperation of the "stubble" from the reeds. Are you reffering to the burned ground and the newly grown reeds? If so, then I take it you feel there is enough definition/sharpness there? This was a big concern for me because I felt that I did not bring out the fg area as prominently as I wanted and that , I think, had a lot to do with the lighting I missed. I lost the natural contrast which brings a perceived sharpness and clarity to a subject/element. This is one of the areas I tried to bring back and mimick in Photoshop. thanks

Tom. . .Good eye, Tom. The gray area at the bottom was not at all deliberate, but rather a "side effect" of a last minute pp step I used to achieve a more dynamic lighting look. It's effect apparently washed a bit of the sepia toning away from the bottom, but when I noticed it I left it alone because I thought I was ok with the result. Thanks for the time

John . . . You touched on another concern I had with this picture. I was not happy about the "lack of depth" that I feel the picture suffers from. As you point out, perhaps the composition brings some depth with the small tree in the bg. Once again, I think the dull lighting flattened the scene, even as I tried to bring it back. My end result I felt was not too bad, but it's nice to know that if I can't get back for a stronger image, I have one that will suffice. Thanks much for your thoughts on it.

Brian . . .Glad you feel it works. This is a small area in Brooklyn that, while may look vast and desolate, does not take more than 20 minutes to walk around before getting back to the streets again. You know how the camera does . . . take a bit of something and remove it from it's context. Thats part of whats so fun about photography.
Thanks Brian

[readingr]

Roger . . You mention the separation of the "stubble" from the reeds. Are you reffering to the burned ground and the newly grown reeds? If so, then I take it you feel there is enough definition/sharpness there? "

Gary,

Exactly the definition and sharpness is spot on and the separation of the burnt and the new comes across clearly on my monitor and it should be better tomorrow as its calibration day:lol:

The layering in the photo of all the components works beautifully to create the feeling of distance and depth in the photo.

Roger

[Seb]

Gary,

I see halos in the lower part of the main tree (have you been using the shadows/highlight tool?) . Other than that, this is a pleasing image. The texture of the ground is especially appealing.

Seb

[Frog]

It sounds like you are your own worst critic, Gary, as I think this one works just fine.
One thing I noticed is how well two trees work instead of the odd number. This was discussed in a thread not too long ago.
I don't think three would work and I tried to figure out why.
When I look at the photo, the composition leads my eye to the empty spaces around and between the trees. With two trees there are three empty spaces so maybe that's why it works so well. Does that make any sense?
Anyway I really like it too and also am not usually a big fan of sepia tone.

[gahspidy]

Roger. . .Thanks for clarifying for me.

Seb . . . I see what you mean here. I looked at the file closely (100%) and do not see halos, at least to an extent where they would be apparent in a print. I notice that when compressing for web display, dark edges against light bg get this effect, sometimes more and sometimes less. As a matter of fact, I can see halos around the edges of the black border surrounding the frame. There were none there before I resized for web display.
Yes, I did use the shadow/highlight tool here but limited its use to the fg area below tree.
This was one of several exposures, and an underexposed one at that. I tried working on a image of higher expoure and am happier with the overall result. I'll post it here for comparison.
thanks

Frog . . .I've been told many times that I am my own worst critic. You bring up an interesting observation about the two trees. I have another composition of this scene where there are three. The camera was panned over a bit more to the left and another tree in the distance was in on the left side, with the main tree closer to middle frame. I did not like it at all. . .too cluttered and seem to throw off the balance of space as you pointed out. Empty spaces are as important as elements filling spaces. . yes, it makes sense to me.



This scene was shot at several different exposures in an attempt at creating an HDR image. I did not like what the result looked like. The HDR exposure looked fine, but because of ever so slight winds, the tree branches had moved between each exposure causing what looked like a slightly blurry image. This also occured with the reeds in the fg, and it completely lost the sharpness I was after.
If you don't mind, I am asking for your opinion of the result of my editing this scene of a slightly higher exposure. The sky is brighter, but I am far happier with the overall integrity of the image and the detail in the fg.

[Frog]

I do like the better detail in the foreground but not sure about the sky, yet.
The difference in size posted makes a huge difference, too, with my preference being the larger one.

[Dave_2_@hotmail.com]

Nice photo. I like the tone and simplicity of the piece. Good use of isolation to bring out the subject. I think the orignal post is the best of the two. God bless-

DC

[KyRain]

Many thoughts on this. I prefer the first. In the second photo the sky is too bright and my eye gets "stuck" at the brightest spot midpoint of the tree. It is as if the tree and the sky are competing with each other. In the first the sky complements the tree and brings out the detail of the tree branches which is what catches my attention in the first place but
my eye doesn't stop there; I am completely drawn to all the different textures. The soft whispery line of grasses is very effective and helps make the pic unique. I don't know if it is the movement of the grasses or the smoke but it works very well to contrast w the sharp branches of the tree. Then the second ridge of grasses that dot the skyline give a lot of movement and I just love it. This is a feast of textures and the sepia tone accents that too. NJ

[MonkeyWrench]

I think they are both great shots, but I still like the first one best. It seems to have more depth when I look at it and I like the darker tone.