Abstract 2: A little more work in post. Honest critique is welcome. ISO 800 F6.3 1/800 second exposure Canon 6D Sigma 150-500mm@403mm...

Nightski

A little more work in post.

Honest critique is welcome.
ISO 800
F6.3
1/800 second exposure

Canon 6D
Sigma 150-500mm@403mm

My Little Tree

(Download)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Nightski wrote:

A little more work in post.

Honest critique is welcome.
ISO 800
F6.3
1/800 second exposure

Canon 6D
Sigma 150-500mm@403mm

All my comments on your first Abstract post apply...and I like this even better!

Yeah...yeah...I know. Why?

I'm thinking! I'm thinking!

I guess it's because the desaturated region and vertically assymetric vignette conveys an even greater perception of depth....Which I hadn't thought possible.

These images blow me away!

Dave

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The colours are definitely a worthwhile addition. But I think the change from one colour to the other could have been more gradual.

Nightski

Actually, I didn't change the colours. I went back to my raw file and really looked at it before I started. I noticed the warm glow was at the bottom and the top was more blue sky ... not quite bright blue yet because it was still early. SO .. I decided to stick with the way nature had presented it and came up with this.

Thanks so much, Dave and RG for looking and commenting. :-)

Nightski

and yes, RG .. I will work on that gradual thing. This was a quick edit before work. I'll have more time tonight.

Nightski

although ... not sure I'll like gradual as that is not how the horizon is ... it's a definite change from one colour to the other.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Nightski wrote:

although ... not sure I'll like gradual as that is not how the horizon is ... it's a definite change from one colour to the other.

That was the horizon?!? I believe you Americans use the word cattywumpus to describe that sort of "level" :) .

I'll accept your verdict that the original changed that abruptly. But I think you've ramped up the strength of the colours, and IMO that would make a gradual change more appropriate. However, I don't have the original to go by, so I'll accept your verdict.

Nightski

R.G. wrote:

That was the horizon?!? I believe you Americans use the word cattywumpus to describe that sort of "level" :) .

I'll accept your verdict that the original changed that abruptly. But I think you've ramped up the strength of the colours, and IMO that would make a gradual change more appropriate. However, I don't have the original to go by, so I'll accept your verdict.

You have a point about the horizon. It is crooked. I shot it crooked to get that angle on the branch. I don't think it matters with the background all blurred.

Do you mean I ramped up the colours from the RAW file or from the scene as it was?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Nightski wrote:

...Do you mean I ramped up the colours from the RAW file or from the scene as it was?

My guess would be that you boosted them from the RAW file. I would expect sky colours and light levels to change gradually.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

R.G. wrote:

That was the horizon?!? I believe you Americans use the word cattywumpus to describe that sort of "level" :) .

I'll accept your verdict that the original changed that abruptly. But I think you've ramped up the strength of the colours, and IMO that would make a gradual change more appropriate. However, I don't have the original to go by, so I'll accept your verdict.

I guess I, too, was confused re: "horizon". I thought it was a metaphor for the region of juncture of the two artifical colors....not the real horizon(of which Zi saw no evidence in the original "Abstract".

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Like it even better than first one. Leave it as it is I reckon. This strikes me as near on perfect and if your like me you screw things up by trying to improve what cannot or does not need improving. Then I get confused as to what is the best image lol. Time to move on Sandra you really hit the button with this so be happy.

Nightski

Billyspad wrote:

Like it even better than first one. Leave it as it is I reckon. This strikes me as near on perfect and if your like me you screw things up by trying to improve what cannot or does not need improving. Then I get confused as to what is the best image lol. Time to move on Sandra you really hit the button with this so be happy.

Oh .. you've made me laugh, Billy. That's exactly what happens .. if you don't stop when the going is good ... it goes downhill quickly and you just get lost in it. Thank you, for the lovely compliment.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Under the extremely follicaly disadvantaged scalp lies I hope a reasonable wise brain which up to now appears to be in full working order.

Have a good day Sandra

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Nightski wrote:

A little more work in post.

Honest critique is welcome.
ISO 800
F6.3
1/800 second exposure

Canon 6D
Sigma 150-500mm@403mm

I like this one a bit better than the first. I think it is the lighter and whiter background towards the upper half of the image.

The branches provide a clear path through the image, but also provide paths to follow along that route. The depth of field provides a bit of mystery as to where some of those paths will lead.

The image is nicely composed and fills the space with intriguing array of pleasant distractions. It reminds me of a series of abstract trees an acquaintance photographed near a place called Munson Lake.
--Bob