A journey into colour: Tree on Loch Leven

[Donald]

Many of you know about me and colour. Just don't go together very well.

Which is why I'm always particularly keen to read comments whenever I do try it.

This is opportunistic in the sense that I went down to nearby Loch Leven early in the morning to get the rising sun and hopefully some strong lines on the shore. I got the former, but not the latter. But what I did come upon was this scene that immediately said 'colour image'. At least in my mind.

I took that long to compose it that I was afraid of losing the light. I worked the angles for ages before seeing the composition that I thought worked. But, as you'll have noticed, the horizon (take that as either the shoreline or the top of the hills) is nowhere near the 'thirds' line. Indeed, it is almost on halfway. I felt okay with that. What do you think?

Your opinions and suggestion for any improvement you think possible, will be welcomed.

I like it, in a 'pretty', 'tourist brochure' sort of way.


40D, 24-70mm f/2.8L @ 24mm. ISO100. 1/90s@f8

[Wayland]

The "thirds" thing is only a guideline based upon an approximation of the "golden ratio" which is yet another guideline.

Don't let such rules get in the way, they are there to help not hinder. As with all rules there tend to be lots of exceptions and I feel that if a picture works it is because it has it's own natural balance. To paraphrase an old ad. "One instinctively knows when something is right."

The only suggestion I would make is to take the luminosity of the blues down a bit which would enrich the sky and the water.

(I often drop a black and white conversion layer onto the image, change the blend mode to luminosity and then you can use the sliders or the scrubby curser tool to lighten or darken particular colours.)

[zen]

Donald, I like it too and don't see it in a "pretty, touristy" way [that's the nature of all landscapes, or seascapes, isn't it?] . Nor am I bothered by any of the color hues or intensity. Colors appear realistic, details and edges are sharp, etc.

But What does bother me a bit - is that I am not certain what you intend the main subject to be. Almost looks like it ought to be the tree, but then so much of it is cut off. Or it might be the sparkling wave tops of the Loch, but then they are not prominent enough. The far skyline, the interesting clouds? Just seems there ought to be something there that grabs my attention and won't let go. But maybe I'm not seeing something there . . .

And by the way, I too understand the rule of thirds as a guideline only, definitely NOT a rigid rule, and frequently ignore it when the elements require different composition.

Thanks for sharing.

Zen

[Mike Buckley]

As for the horizon, there is a famous National Geographic photographer who makes a point of placing his horizons dead center. (Sorry that I don't remember his name.) Your image, like his, proves that it works.

As for making touristy images, I have to wonder if you would be able to make one if you tried. Considering that this one is far from being touristy, thank you for confirming my thinking about that.

Try selecting the clouds and the distant shoreline. Then pull the middle of the curve toward the bottom right corner until it meets your satisfaction, if at all. I think you'll like that it minimizes or eliminates the haze and adds texture and contrast to the clouds.

Sorry that I didn't mention up front that your photo has the makings of a wonderful image, though I suspect that you knew that.

[FootLoose]

Donald, I thought the subject of the image is the colours and texture moss-covered bark, but I couldn't see it well enough here (even when enlarged). So I downloaded it and zoomed in to 150%. At that size is looks great, and on my monitor at least, it only crops about a cm off the bottom.

So, maybe you need to post a larger size image here, or crop a bit, or move in closer.

(Just my humble opinion).

[Steve S]

I like it too, donald. But, say it isn't so........................you're going to color???????????????




I forgot, the colors look natural, and well saturated......................well done.

[AB26]

Hi Donald,

I am looking and I am looking again. Then I download your image and try different crops. I look and I can’t find what I am looking for.

The tree is framing something and I cannot find that something. I want a boat or a bird maybe a fisherman or something else in the middle ground, on or in the water. Now my eye is searching for the shoreline on the left or the right. The stretch of water on the right hand side of the tree is to narrow, if I crop it out it just does not work. The centre horizon does not bother a bit as the tree “pushes” it down. Deepening the shadows gives it a bit more “punch” but there is still something missing.

How many times have I been in the same situation? You spend time and pay much attention to detail to get the shot. You expect it to be a great shot and it turns out to be just a nice image. What is missing?

Thanks for sharing this shot Donald. It makes me think, re-compose and take the shot or wait and see what might happened to make it worth a thousand words.

[Mike Buckley]

The tree is framing something and I cannot find that something.

Not for me. The tree is the subject and it stands very well on its own.

[rpcrowe]

Very nice image. The midpoint horizon doesn't bother me a bit since I really did not notice that the image was split by the horizon until it was pointed out. I think that results from much the top half of the image being taken up by the upper branches of the tree.

[Ken Curtis]

I like what you've done, Donald. The horizon being where it is does not appear to divide the image in half. The tree is the dominant object. It is a continuous structure, not separated into sections by the horizon, and therefore where the horizon is does not matter.

The lighting appears soft as you would expect early in the morning, but I wonder if you would like the image any better by slightly increasing the contrast. I downloaded the image and applied a curves adjustment, which I prefer. But obviously this is a personal preference that you may not care for.

Also for curiosity sake, I converted the image to B&W and tried various adjustments. I could not find any combination that yielded a better photo than what you have in color. The earth tones and blue water contribute to the tranquil view of the loch.

[wilgk]

I really like the patch of shade from the tree in the foreground, I feel myself sitting there enjoying the view.
Landscapes remind me of the 'house for sale' example... Prospective buyers want to imagine themselves in the house, not just look at the owners things.
If that makes sense, I like landscapes that make me feel I am there, rather than just looking at what the photographer saw..
This image with the shady spot does that (sorry if that's a ramble)

[Donald]

(sorry if that's a ramble)

I don't think counts as a ramble. Thanks Kay and good to see you posting.

And thankyou to everyone else. I always like reading the various perspectives and analysis that people offer on my images. It's all part of the learning process.

[Mike Buckley]

It's all part of the learning process.

Photography is, if nothing else, most definitely a learning process.