Beginner Why is it?.......Woodland photography

ancient_mariner said:
The mist has a fair bit to do with winding back on the clarity, though it was a little misty too. I'm struggling to find the woodland examples that I know are tucked away somewhere. ;)
Stoke tree-02142 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That is by far the best photo in this thread.

It looks a lot cleaner and simpler than the rest. It is not so much the fog, but that really helps too to create the atmosphere. It is very obvious what and where the subject is. There is no mess and random intimate twigs here and there. This is where all of the rest fail.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
That is by far the best photo in this thread.

It looks a lot cleaner and simpler than the rest. It is not so much the fog, but that really helps too to create the atmosphere. It is very obvious what and where the subject is. There is no mess and random intimate twigs here and there. This is where all of the rest fail.
Click to expand...

In your opinion...

No disrespect to the poster of that, but it’s far from my favourite posted here...

We all like different things and it’s not really fair to say one is better than the other as it’s all subjective.
 
TCR4x4 said:
We all like different things and it’s not really fair to say one is better than the other as it’s all subjective.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with you there. It is a human nature to favour one expression over the other and discriminate - hopefully for subjective reasons. Without these we would be soul-less grey clones, like in an ant colony unable to create anything outside the script, like, enjoy or dislike anything.

I fully respect your right to your opinion and hopefully you would make it know so people could debate it.
 
I mean in this thread in particular rather than generally in life. This isn’t a critique thread so it’s not fair to say one image is far better than the rest, or one is far worse. Of course we will all have our own thoughts but I just don’t think they need to be expressed in such a direct manor.

Your words were “by far the best Photo in the thread”.
In my opinion it isn’t. Hence my first post. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion that is the best, but in a thread like this, I don’t think it’s necessary to say that.
 
I quite like cross processing trees, as I just feel this draws out a single tree quite well, or sets a "tone". Some people like the stylizing and others don't, but it can be useful. Like everything else, its each to his own and its what pleases you. I like Mark Littlejohn's style when its comes to trees, and fog or beams of light can be useful, but so can shadows.

Trees by DuncanTyson, on Flickr

Trees by DuncanTyson, on Flickr

Trees by DuncanTyson, on Flickr

Trees by DuncanTyson, on Flickr

Trees by DuncanTyson, on Flickr
 
droj said:
Meaning ???????

Satisfying images, though ...
Click to expand...

It's an editing technique, also called split toning - a lot of well-known woodland photographers do this. Google is your friend here :)
 
droj said:
Well dang me - I'd always thought that cross-processing was when you developed slide film in neg chemicals or some other permutation ...
Click to expand...

In Lightroom there's a slider, nice and simple in theory but you can easily go OTT!
 
droj said:
Well dang me - I'd always thought that cross-processing was when you developed slide film in neg chemicals or some other permutation ...
Click to expand...

And you're absolutely right. :)

But an effect somewhat like it can be created with split toning, altering the colour channel hue and RGB curves.
 
I tend to look for the smaller things such as leaves, berries or anything else really that catches my eye with abstract shapes and colours. The little pool of light and the daisy shadow in the bottom right quarter was the point here...

1-DSC00177.jpg

I take quite a few leaf and berry shots, Mrs WW must think I'm at least a bit odd always stopping to look at stuff.

1-DSC08237.jpg

Bluebells are a challenge worth waiting for, often a frustrating challenge.

I tend to walk slooooowly.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
And you're absolutely right. :)

But an effect somewhat like it can be created with split toning, altering the colour channel hue and RGB curves.
Click to expand...
Definitely, with the added bonus that you can mute/flatten the bottom of the colour curve ala blacks in the vintage style too.
ihasa said:
Love these two. That beautiful twisted trunk feels a little close to the edge though.
Click to expand...
It was, but it was this or not taking the shot due to the clutter just out of frame. This was wide as it could get from memory at 10mm.
 
I have also felt your pain at spending ages in BEAUTIFUL ancient woodland and come out with nothing. As a fairly amateur photographer I don’t have much technical advice that hasn’t been mentioned but as someone who works in ecology I have noticed that what makes a good woodland in terms of habitat usually makes it terrible for photography - dense understory, high complexity etc. Conifer plantations and young secondary woodlands often make better subjects that ancient woodlands. At least it’s easier to find decent compositions in ‘simpler’ woodlands. Here’s my most recent attempt at simplifying a woodland subject: https://flic.kr/p/2b9hpkC
 
ancient_mariner said:
But there's LOADS you could do with that image. It looks a bit over-exposed, and the colours are a little murky, but drop the exposure, warm the colours and reduce the shadows to put the background trees lower in the senses and suddenly it should start to look interesting. Composition may not be the best because there's not enough clear space around it, but you could do quite a bit to help your image.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what I do. The image on the left just didn't do the scene I was seeing justice, which just goes to show the difference between what a sensor/film sees and what the eye sees. It's all in the processing :)
The image on the right was warmed up and the shadows dropped, I did add a little glow as well. The subject tree still isn't dominating like it did visually but it's better than V1.
Before and after.jpg
 
LeeRatters said:
Here are a few I'm reasonably happy with. So far. Hopefully when this autumn gets here I'll be a bit more knowledgeable & experienced on the subject :)

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

*** by Lee, on Flickr

Mist. Light. Colours...... You'll also learn what doesn't look perfect, but will be editable into what you desire ;)
Click to expand...

Great photos as always Lee, but wanted to say something more specific about the second shot. Firstly I think is has a great feel to it already with really nice lighting on the foreground. I wondered though if you had tried in portrait aspect focusing on the wheel ruts and main trees, I tried it using my hands as a mask and found that the tracks really pulled you into the trees and brought the fog at the back into play,it had almost an ethereal feel. Like I said though great hot in the first instance (y)
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
Great photos as always Lee, but wanted to say something more specific about the second shot. Firstly I think is has a great feel to it already with really nice lighting on the foreground. I wondered though if you had tried in portrait aspect focusing on the wheel ruts and main trees, I tried it using my hands as a mask and found that the tracks really pulled you into the trees and brought the fog at the back into play,it had almost an ethereal feel. Like I said though great hot in the first instance (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris. In all honesty..... I very rarely shoot vertical so I don't automatically look for potential images in that framing!! Maybe I should, you could well be right. That woodland is only half hours drive & about 20 minutes walk but I've yet to go back in those same conditions. That shot was the Voigtlander 40/1.4M at about f/4-5.6 iirc focused on the mid trees.
 
LeeRatters said:
Thanks Chris. In all honesty..... I very rarely shoot vertical so I don't automatically look for potential images in that framing!! Maybe I should, you could well be right. That woodland is only half hours drive & about 20 minutes walk but I've yet to go back in those same conditions. That shot was the Voigtlander 40/1.4M at about f/4-5.6 iirc focused on the mid trees.
Click to expand...
I had noticed your love for the landscape aspect;)

I noticed that you have edit set to yes, so I hope you don't mind that I had a little play to show my thought process. I'll PM it over so as not to detract from the rest of thread. This was just a quick crop and levels so feel free to disagree if you want, thats what makes photography great (the subjectivity).

EDIT: I can't see how to add a pic to a PM without linking it to my profile somewhere so I'll have to add as a thumbnail. Sorry. I'm happy to delete if you would like

IMG_0807.jpg
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
I had noticed your love for the landscape aspect;)

I noticed that you have edit set to yes, so I hope you don't mind that I had a little play to show my thought process. I'll PM it over so as not to detract from the rest of thread. This was just a quick crop and levels so feel free to disagree if you want, thats what makes photography great (the subjectivity).

EDIT: I can't see how to add a pic to a PM without linking it to my profile somewhere so I'll have to add as a thumbnail. Sorry. I'm happy to delete if you would like

View attachment 139801
Click to expand...

Maybe the 85mm in portrait might have worked... ;)

I was trying to catch the light to dark, left to right, in the original but I like it Chris. Thanks. I shall try to remember to switch my portrait head on next time :)
 
Last edited:
I would say part of the issue is that perhaps people underestimate the importance of weather conditions when shooting in woodland relative to other kinds of landscape photography. I mean on one level woodland can actually be very well suited for overcast days yet personally I find its actually one of the most weather/light dependant of all locations when it comes to creating images with some impact to them. The value of mist especially I think can't be overstated when it comes to giving images more of a sense of form and distance. you can see it in a lot of the best images in this thread.

Equally I think its also perhaps easy to look past the importance of really getting to know a location with woodland relative to say images taken from a viewpoint. As with any landscape photography knowing the location obviously helps in exploiting the conditions but perhaps takes more in the way of exploration. I would argue that the possibilities of woodland are so numerous that often focusing on just one location can be very helpful and productive, personally I do the majority of my woodland shooting in just one decent sized belt that I'v gotten to know well over a few years.

LMNTNJ8.jpg


wst17xP.jpg


NnJStDj.jpg


B6oM9vU.jpg
 
Last edited:
Can't see the wood for the trees huh? I feel that way every time I hit a nice location too. I'm much more likely to return with a couple of half arsed macro shoots than some beautiful scenics. Having a second pair of eyes as others suggested is a good idea, but they may not always want to plod around in the woods for hours so you can get a nice shot :D

Sometimes the trees are the best subject though. There's something majestic and endearing about them, especially ones that a bit different to the rest. I didn't plan on shooting a tree on this day, but it turned out to be pretty much all I got on that river walk:
Tree Sprawl by K G, on Flickr

Nothing special, just this tree stood out from the rest, the crazy wayward branches, I like it, that's all that matters :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top