Tree At Edge Of Field

[Xia_Ke]

What can I say, I love tree shots for some reason. Here's one I drive by all the time. Decided today to stop and take a few shots.

[Greg McCary]

This is a very beautiful picture. I like the composition. The trees in the background leaning slightly to the right look almost wind blown. I like the choice of B&W as well. It looks like there is some noise. I might run it through some noise reduction software. But well done.
Greg

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks for the input Greg. I actually decided to add a touch of noise to this one. Think I should have done without it?

[Hickeroar]

I personally would prefer it without the noise. If you get a chance, try posting it both ways so we can compare.

[Xia_Ke]

Here it is without the touch of noise added. There is a bit to it just as a result of the vamping up of the on contrast and black/white levels. This was shot at ISO 400

[Greg McCary]

I agree, I think that I prefer it without it.

[gahspidy]

I like tree subjects like this. Nicely framed, but I think cropping up from the bottom to the lighter area on the field would help. I think I see where you were going with adding the noise to the shot. . .I have done that myself at times. I think though if your going to add the noise and give it a haunting, old feel you should go further with it. Add more noise, and wash out the shadow areas a bit, and possibly add a slight yellow/sepia toning overall. . . very slight. Just my thought on the PP.
If you get back to this scene, my feeling would be to get down low (lay on the ground) and shoot this to get the tree up over the trees in the bg. It will really stand out strong against the sky and appear more isolated. Also, a time of day when the sun would cast a long shadow of the tree in the field would add to this.
Great subject

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks Gary. Some great input I'll be driving by there on my way home tonight, I'll have to see how the lighting is. I'm not sure how much lower I'll be able to get for the time being. The darker area in the foreground is actually all flooded still from that Nor'Easter that rolled through before I'll stopped by there tonight and see what I can come up with.

[Xia_Ke]

Alright, so I stopped by this spot again on the way home from work and snapped some more shots. Unfortunately I really can't shoot this tree from any other direction without introducing buildings into the background which I want to avoid. I think I still like the original the best but, here's a few other shots from slightly different perspectives...

[dbutler]

I liked the first image you posted but love the last three. Especially that last one. The texture of the grass is wonderful and I love the tonal and dynamic range. Normally the very white, bright cloud would bother me, but it lends itself to the surreal feeling of the image. I really, really like this.

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks for your input d That third one was my fav out of those 3 too. On hindsight, I wish I would have backed off a bit on that one and added more grass to the shot and moved the horizon up a bit. I have a feeling this is one of those locations that is going to haunt me until I can catch it just right. It's going to taunt me every time I drive to and from work...LOL

[gahspidy]

I like those last three as well. I like the texture of the field leading to the tree in the third but really like the horizontal crop and shadow of the tree in the top.
I would like to see you shoot as you did in the top picture(1st of the three) but include more field at the bottom and more room to the sides. Loosen the crop some more.
I had a few locations that kept drawing me for that perfect shot. . . .I know what you mean.

[Greg McCary]

I like the composition on these and I also like how the sky is darkened at the top but lightens up torwards the tree line. I think I do see some sort of noise/distortion at the tree line? Just curious why ISO 400? You might get better quality results from a slightly lower iso.
Greg

[Xia_Ke]

I like those last three as well. I like the texture of the field leading to the tree in the third but really like the horizontal crop and shadow of the tree in the top.
I would like to see you shoot as you did in the top picture(1st of the three) but include more field at the bottom and more room to the sides. Loosen the crop some more.
I had a few locations that kept drawing me for that perfect shot. . . .I know what you mean.

Thanks Gary I'll try that today on my way home from work today.

[Xia_Ke]

I like the composition on these and I also like how the sky is darkened at the top but lightens up torwards the tree line. I think I do see some sort of noise/distortion at the tree line? Just curious why ISO 400? You might get better quality results from a slightly lower iso.
Greg

Thank Greg I have a problem with not double checking all my settings when I first start shooting That's why the first one is ISO 400 as it was from playing around the night before. The last 3 I just posted were all ISO 200 which is as low as my camera goes. Part of the noise issue is with the black and white conversion when I start adjusting Aqua/Blue/Purple/Magenta levels, then bumping up the contrast. Or at least that's when I've noticed some starts to get introduced. Any ideas on how to do it differently or how to avoid it?

Thanks again
Aaron

[gahspidy]

Anytime you start editing your pictures, especially with hard edits like pushing the levels and contrasts, you will start breaking down the file and seeing banding, noise, artifacts etc.
Try to do everything you can in 16 bit color depth. I think PS 7 offers b&w conversion through channels mixer in 16 bit. I know CS2 offers lots of functions in 16 bit. I'm not familiar with LightRoom yet. I would imagine it would offer lots offunctions in 16 bit. Most importantly, keep the edits within moderation so as not to go to the point of seeing unwanted side effects.
I liked your original conversion best, without the dark sky.

[Greg McCary]

Gary is right that channel mixer is the way to go. Pushing levels and curves to far creates all sorts of grain. Also hitting exposure dead on helps in the conversion. It works best if you have the exposure between the sky and ground right before you ever start. If you are not using filters you might invest in a couple. Get as much right in the field before you ever get your picture to the computer.

[Xia_Ke]

Anytime you start editing your pictures, especially with hard edits like pushing the levels and contrasts, you will start breaking down the file and seeing banding, noise, artifacts etc.
Try to do everything you can in 16 bit color depth. I think PS 7 offers b&w conversion through channels mixer in 16 bit. I know CS2 offers lots of functions in 16 bit. I'm not familiar with LightRoom yet. I would imagine it would offer lots offunctions in 16 bit. Most importantly, keep the edits within moderation so as not to go to the point of seeing unwanted side effects.
I liked your original conversion best, without the dark sky.

Hi Gary, these were shot as RAW files and edited as such in Lightroom. Images were then export as JPEGs to be resized in Photoshop. I guess the biggest thing I need to keep in mind is "moderation", like you mentioned. I like dark, high contrast b&w's but, I do know that I have a tendency to over do things

Gary is right that channel mixer is the way to go. Pushing levels and curves to far creates all sorts of grain. Also hitting exposure dead on helps in the conversion. It works best if you have the exposure between the sky and ground right before you ever start. If you are not using filters you might invest in a couple. Get as much right in the field before you ever get your picture to the computer.

Hi Gary, as mentioned above, the conversions were done in Lightroom. When I did my conversions in Photoshop before, I could never quite get it the way that I liked it with the channel mixers. Mostly I used to use a black and white gradient map, adjust the black and white points, and then adjust contrast levels. I thought I was doing alright with my exposures on the original shots. Maybe you could make recommendations otherwise I attached the originals to this post for comparison.


THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR HELP EVERYONE! THIS IS TURNING INTO QUITE THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE

[Xia_Ke]

Also, I stopped today and snapped another few shots. I tried playing with my DOF a bit too. Didn't quite have the effect I was hoping for. Was trying for a blurry foreground, fading to an in focus tree. Getting back to b&w conversion, below is the original shot, a shot with just a straight grayscale conversion in Lightroom with no other adjustment, and finally a fully adjusted one. Any thoughts, recommendations, etc?

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EDIT ANY SHOTS IN THIS THREAD. I ONLY ASK YOU EXPLAIN HOW AND WHY YOU EDITED THE WAY YOU DID.

Thanks again everyone!!!

[gahspidy]

Aaron, these are a couple of examples of the conversion I'm getting at. These two pictures that i got from your post did not hold up very well to the conversion, but a full resolution file, especially done in 16 bit should hold up with no problems.
In both pictures I converted to b&w using the channels mixer with a setting of
Red channel 80
Green channel 30
Blue channel -10
The reason for the boost in the green channel is to bring out the green areas of the tree, and a slight reduction in blue channel to darken the blue sky a bit.
Then I did a curves adjustment using a mild S-curve to enhance the overall contrast.
On the horizontal picture, I increased the canvas size and added more foreground to the bottom and a little more space to the left of the tree, both using the cloning brush.
You mentioned that you were trying to get a blurry fg with a sharp tree. I would have focused halfway between the tree and the bottom of the frame with a small aperture 11 or so because the tree will still come out looking quite sharp and then the benefit of having that textured dried grass sharp will be a real treat.
I still like the framing and comp of the original picture you posted in this thread. i would try for that again, but lay on the ground so as to get the tree up over the trees in the background. A dramatic sky or a puffy cloud would be a boost as well.

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks yet again Gary I like how your conversions came out. One thing I was hoping/trying for was more pop from the lone tree. I really wanted to it stand out from the tree line in the back ground. I suppose it's time to really starting learning masking techniques in Photoshop?

[Xia_Ke]

Okay, so I still don't feel like I've gotten this spot the way I want it. Here's another attempt at it. Am I getting close yet?

[gahspidy]

Aaron, this works for me. The conversion as well.

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks Gary

[GB1]

Xia - I like trees too, but I think I prefer them in a grouping than solo. I do like your shots here though.. the first posting of the tree, I think it's strong. Perhaps it would be even stronger if the trees in the horizon were just a little lower so that the main tree stood noticably higher. The posting of three B&Ws seems more saturated, I assume you either used a polarizer or some other type of filter, or adjusted afterwards (if not, congrats on hitting them just at the most perfrect time of day).
GB