live oak grove

[photophorous]

At least, I think they're live oaks.

I know this one has some issues, but I'm not sure what caused them. I used a green filter. A green filter makes green look brighter, right? So, would the exposure be better if the grass and the leaves were less bright in this case?

Please critique.

Thanks,
Paul

[gahspidy]

I think this scene is a good one and your comp is very good. I can't give you any advice on thye filter as I really have little experience usiong any except once in a while to eliminate a colorcast caused by flourescent or tungsten lighting. The only issue for me in theimage is the sharpness of the trunks. I'm thinking the compression for web display has softened the image, but it should not have softened it this much. Is the original file alot sharper? I think you have a pretty good image here.

[readingr]

Paul,

Hmm! interesting composition, I agree with Gary about the sharpness and don't have a clue about filters unless your talking polaroid or Yellow or Deep Red for enhancing clouds.

My feeling, well more like ideas, is that the two trees directly infront of you which form the far arch need to be a little off centre either left or right, The ones with the tree bisecting them if that makes sense. They seem to trap my eye and won't let them roam around the picture and it competes with the space to the left.

I am not to keen on the very slender tree in the foreground left which looks like a big wire cable - perhaps because its not sharp or again its distracting from the rest of the trees because its different.

I think you would need to revisit and take many shots of the trees from many positions to see what works and what doesn't.

As for the lighting it would be interesting to see this without the filter so that we can compare the difference. But for me it looks okay.

Sorry can't be more constructive.
Roger

[photophorous]

Roger, Gary,

Thanks for commenting.

There are several things that I think could be contributing to the lack of sharpness, but I don't know which ones are most likely. Maybe you guys can tell me if any of this sounds rational. First, the filter is a cheapo, Cokin p-series. I'm not sure how much of it is the quality of the filter and how much is just the filter making the viewfinder so dark that I can't see to focus. Second, the image is cropped...was originally a vertical shot. I don't have good editing software, so the crop/compression did make it a little fuzzy, but the original is not sharp either. Third, this is my first ever roll of Kodak Tri-X, which I hear is very grainy. Fourth, I think maybe there just isn't enough exposure latitude (in any film) to capture this scene, as I took it. That's why I think the green filter, brightening the foliage and grass, might have made it worse, sucking some detail out of the tree trunks.

As far as composition goes, I agree the different tree (a juniper) in the fg is distracting. I could have cropped it differently too.

I'll probably try to reshoot this, or another similar scene, but I don't know when. I'm about to start a B&W photo class through the Austin Museum of Art, so it will depend on my assignments. I'm looking forward to it.

Thanks again,
Paul

[readingr]

Paul,

All I have ever used are Cokin A Series and never found them to be a problem. However I do manually focus when using any filter even on the autofocus camera except the polariser which even the Digital camera autofous copes with beautifully thank god!

So check the filter for smudges or bad spots, mine were bought in 1982'ish and still going strong. To get the extra speed use a tripod to extend the exposure if its an issue. I tend to use my monopod and tripod quite a bit but find that I can hold the camera steady down to about 1/30th but its a hit and miss affair at that speed.

Have you tried it without filter to see how it looks it might surprise you or just go for an Ilford FP4/HP5 which you can push if you need to but tell the developer that you have done this. I did once push FP4 to 400 and HP5 to 1600 on occasions, cant remember the exact setting now and the result was acceptable. The camera was a Canon AE1 using Canon 50mm f1.4 or the Canon 70-210 f4 Zoom or the Sigma 28-70 f3.5

Never played with TRI-X so can't comment on the film

Hope that helps.

Roger

[readingr]

Sorry typo

I meant to have said pushed FP4 to 400 not 800 - I have now corrected theoriginal

roger