More local stuff (and it's green!)

[Len Philpot]

April is starting to remind us that May is soon arriving, which prepares us for June and the rest of summer (until late October). It's still nice, but getting warmer and definitely more humid. This morning was broken overcast with fleeting sunlight. I took a drive to a local wildlife management area and found this uber-green tree leaning over a rain-filled pond.



That's three images -- One for the trees, one for the corner of sky and a third long-exposure for the water.

On the way home I passed "The Grove", which is half a dozen old oaks surrounding by encroaching pines and undergrowth. It seems to be reaching for the canopy. The challenge here was to separate the trunk and limbs from the leaves without over or under doing either component. I think I'm close but maybe not perfect.



The artist in action, sans artist.



There's lots of man-made "flora" here, just like everywhere in my home area:

 

[Gary R. Smith]

That first one is great Len! So is the second one. It's kinda chilly here (in the 50's) and soggy (although my wife said that she'd read that we were having a "flash drought" - whatever that is).

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Very nice, well done. But…if I’m picky…I wish that in the first image you hadn’t done the long exposure on the water, as to my eyes it just looks different from the rest of the image. Which it is, given your editing choices. I know this is a common practice with digital landscapes, trying to get each element exposed ‘perfectly’, but to me it just looks false. Now, there’s no reason photography has to look ‘natural’, as it can never be that, so you can tell me to go and jump! As for the second shot, you have achieved your objective: they look separate. Again, it doesn’t look natural to me, but natural is not what you were hoping to record…so, well done

 

[Gianluca Drago]

Beautiful both photos, but the second one is my favorite, it makes you want to climb those branches (and possibly have four legs and a tail). Well done, Len!

 

[Ralph Turner]

I love the second shot, Len

 

[Len Philpot]

Very nice, well done. But…if I’m picky…I wish that in the first image you hadn’t done the long exposure on the water, as to my eyes it just looks different from the rest of the image. Which it is, given your editing choices. I know this is a common practice with digital landscapes, trying to get each element exposed ‘perfectly’, but to me it just looks false. Now, there’s no reason photography has to look ‘natural’, as it can never be that, so you can tell me to go and jump! As for the second shot, you have achieved your objective: they look separate. Again, it doesn’t look natural to me, but natural is not what you were hoping to record…so, well done

Actually I agree with you but ended up with the long exposed water anyway. I think something more subtle in the middle might work best. There was a fair amount of wind so that was shot at ISO 800 and 1/250 IIRC. As a result the water had a lot of surface detail which was distracting.

Truth is, it was a bit of a forced shot in the first place. There was something there but I don't think I quite captured it. I know I didn't as far as the light goes.

Thanks!

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Cheers, Len. It’s definitely pleasant enough.