Critique Trees in the Mist

[Lost_Manc]

Couldn't think of a suitably clever title so Trees in the Mist it is!

Spotted this scene and managed to capture it as the mist rolled over the tops yesterday and added some separation.

Would appreciate any feedback you feel like offering on the picture as a whole. It certainly wasn't the shot I was in the area for on the day (location and access wasn't what I remembered. Must be getting old and forgetful!) but spotted this later on after packing away and just going for a walk instead.

I'm ultimately happy with the capture but would be interested in whether others feel it works and if not why they feel so.

Haven't uploaded to Flickr yet (so lower quality here) as I'm undecided on edit. We are split 50/50 in the house. I like the B&W personally but keen to hear other opinions.





Thanks.

 

[4wd]

It looks good to me in B+W too, with these very low light scenes getting colour balance right is always tricky. They look like Sitka which has a blue sheen you might play around with a warmer tones hinting at sun setting beyond the mist.
It is quite abstract and I might have made a double length version with RH side same image flipped just for fun.

 

[Lost_Manc]

It looks good to me in B+W too, with these very low light scenes getting colour balance right is always tricky. They look like Sitka which has a blue sheen you might play around with a warmer tones hinting at sun setting beyond the mist.
It is quite abstract and I might have made a double length version with RH side same image flipped just for fun.

I believe they are indeed Sitka (Macclesfield Forest certainly has them I believe).

I did wish I could have made the scene wider but just out of shot to the right os the large area that has been deforested near Standing Stones so the scene literally dropped of into emptiness.

Just quickly warmed (no other adjustments) the shot up and quite like it although still leaning to the B&W personally.
Think I will have to sit on this one for a few days.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Dorsetsnapshot]

Lovely set. I really like the second one, although b&w does work well!

 

[Lost_Manc]

Lovely set. I really like the second one, although b&w does work well!

Thank you.

Out of interest.
The second from the 1st post or the edit in the 2nd post I made?

 

[Norkie]

I like the mono version

 

[Lost_Manc]

I like the mono version

Thanks. The mono ended up remaining my favourite and is what I uploaded to Flickr and it’s full quality.

https://flic.kr/p/2nYxBvB

View: https://flic.kr/p/2nYxBvB

 

[jerry12953]

Personally I think you need more layers to make it really work.

 

[woof woof]

Rob,

I like the picture and my pick is number 2 as for me it works better than either the mono or warmed version. I can imagine seeing number 2 on a walk and taking that memory of that moment away with me and I don't quite get that reaction from the other versions unless number 3 is actually closer to reality and if number 3 was what'd I'd seen then that's the one I'd prefer

Although I like it to some who maybe have no initial connection to it or the place or any place like it it might seem a little uninteresting as there's arguably not a lot of contrast or colour and arguably nothing really punchy or obvious to grab a viewer and impress on a first look. Maybe a bird in flight over the trees would add initial impact and interest or maybe some more detail in the sky. Maybe. Maybe it's a picture that will benefit from being looked at over a period of days and maybe after that will be easier for anyone unconnected to appreciate it or maybe it could work better as a part of a series of pictures.

As a stand alone picture I think it could lack appeal unless the viewer feels a connection or comes to appreciate it more after longer or repeated viewing but as a subtle picture I do like it, I'm just thinking that some people may not initially see much to retain their interest.

Well taken Rob

 

[Lost_Manc]

Personally I think you need more layers to make it really work.

Yeah. I agree. Would be a very long wait in that area/spot until that might happen though. What I got is probably the best I could hope for really without the landscape changing.

Rob,

I like the picture and my pick is number 2 as for me it works better than either the mono or warmed version. I can imagine seeing number 2 on a walk and taking that memory of that moment away with me and I don't quite get that reaction from the other versions unless number 3 is actually closer to reality and if number 3 was what'd I'd seen then that's the one I'd prefer

Although I like it to some who maybe have no initial connection to it or the place or any place like it it might seem a little uninteresting as there's arguably not a lot of contrast or colour and arguably nothing really punchy or obvious to grab a viewer and impress on a first look. Maybe a bird in flight over the trees would add initial impact and interest or maybe some more detail in the sky. Maybe. Maybe it's a picture that will benefit from being looked at over a period of days and maybe after that will be easier for anyone unconnected to appreciate it or maybe it could work better as a part of a series of pictures.

As a stand alone picture I think it could lack appeal unless the viewer feels a connection or comes to appreciate it more after longer or repeated viewing but as a subtle picture I do like it, I'm just thinking that some people may not initially see much to retain their interest.

Well taken Rob

Yes. picture 2 is ‘reality’.
Version 3 was just a test based on a previous comment.
With the mono it is clearly an ’artistic’ choice so I don’t get too hung up on that but I personally feel the warmer version is straying into the make believe! Likewise the empty sky would have been wonderful if a bird had of graced me with its presence but it wasn’t to be and the science didnt last long enough to wait for one.
Again, I could have added one, but, again it wouldn’t be true.

Your points however I fully understand.
I keep coming back to it as a memory of a nice morning with the wife and youngest, but equally I/it feels it needs more.
I really couldn’t decide whether to upload or not either here or Flickr.

Ultimately I am happy with it but, in hindsight it’s probably more a ‘snapshot’ than anything others may enjoy.

Appreciate you taking the time to respond though and offer you insight.

 

[jerry12953]

Yeah. I agree. Would be a very long wait in that area/spot until that might happen though. What I got is probably the best I could hope for really without the landscape changing.

In my original post I should perhaps have said " to make it more interesting" rather than "to make it work". It kind of "works" but with only two layers it isn't really that interesting.

 

[woof woof]

Yeah. I agree. Would be a very long wait in that area/spot until that might happen though. What I got is probably the best I could hope for really without the landscape changing.


Yes. picture 2 is ‘reality’.
Version 3 was just a test based on a previous comment.
With the mono it is clearly an ’artistic’ choice so I don’t get too hung up on that but I personally feel the warmer version is straying into the make believe! Likewise the empty sky would have been wonderful if a bird had of graced me with its presence but it wasn’t to be and the science didnt last long enough to wait for one.
Again, I could have added one, but, again it wouldn’t be true.

Your points however I fully understand.
I keep coming back to it as a memory of a nice morning with the wife and youngest, but equally I/it feels it needs more.
I really couldn’t decide whether to upload or not either here or Flickr.

Ultimately I am happy with it but, in hindsight it’s probably more a ‘snapshot’ than anything others may enjoy.

Appreciate you taking the time to respond though and offer you insight.

I do like it and I think it's more than a snapshot, it just needs time to be appreciated and I think you could still be looking at it in 10 years time and reliving the moment. as I said, well taken.

 

[Lost_Manc]

In my original post I should perhaps have said " to make it more interesting" rather than "to make it work". It kind of "works" but with only two layers it isn't really that interesting.

It’s ok. I kind of took that as inferred tbh.
I agree. Even having been there at the moment being subjective it is lacking something else to really ‘grab’.
So whilst I enjoy the pictures I can see why it may not work for others.

I do like it and I think it's more than a snapshot, it just needs time to be appreciated and I think you could still be looking at it in 10 years time and reliving the moment. as I said, well taken.

Yeah. Snapshot maybe the wrong term.
I can see how it doesn’t work for some and does (to a degree) for others whereas for me it represents more than just the ‘snapshot’ of a moment.

Interesting little discussion for me anyway and with the passing of several days I can look at it differently and with alternate perspectives.
Obviously we all see things differently and like different things.

Equally my edit may not be helping. Considerably more detail present in the foreground trees in LRc compared to when viewed on Flickr/other devices so maybe I also need to look into my settings/screen brightness etc there.

Again. Appreciate the input from you both.