Early morning in the woods

mayakasi · Jul 6, 2006

I know that forest is difficult object to photographing , you executed this superbly

karissa · Jul 6, 2006

I agree with the f20 being better but I also like it better because the greens are a little warmer in the second one. Everything also seems a little more crisp.

Raymond J Barlow · Jul 6, 2006

love the last shot! awesome series!

abraxas · Sep 17, 2006

I'm not a fan of lens flare. I've always felt like it was an industrial intrusion into a perfect, natural environment.

#4 is a great shot! I'm wondering though, why such a high ISO? Wouldn't a lower (100-200) ISO, a small aperature, but a longer shutter speed produce more vivid color?

LaFoto · Sep 17, 2006

You mean the 800 ISO that I used for Photo 3?
Well, I did not bring a tripod (and am now glad I never bothered to bring one since that wood, at that time of the year, was totally and horribly mosquito-infested and even while standing there for those short moments it took me to get the settings done, I almost got eaten up by them), so I could not go for longer exposure times. And I used pretty much tele-zoom for that particular photo, so I had to compensate for that by making my shutter-speed higher, else I would not have been able to handhold the pic but would possibly have got camera shake. So I had to adjust for that...

And look at the shutter speed in the first two in that shadowy wood, with the small aperture I went for ... it would have been 1/4 or so at 200 ISO, and I cannot handhold that well... that's why I had to go for such high ISO.

abraxas · Sep 17, 2006

I see. I didn't consider that. The climate here is quite different and I tend to forget that it is not the same around the entire world. Once, near Denver, Colorado, in a place called Cherry Creek I marched happily down to an especially deserted and very beautiful spot along the creek, tripod over shoulder, camera bag, little sack lunch, etc. Tall reeds, clear water, incredible skies, blah, blah, blah... I was being baited. Seems as soon as I set up, the finger on the button was the signal the mosquitoes were waiting for. They swarmed and were very serious about eating me. It didn't matter how much clothes I wore, how much I swatted and swung or how fast I ran, they were very blood thirsty. Apparently the locals are smart enough to starve them by not going down there. I lost a pretty decent pair of sunglasses down there. My hat stayed on, but it didn't matter, they were knawing at my head right through it. It took a week to fester and heal.

Faster ISO? Wish I would have known.

BTW, That's the green!

chris82 · Sep 17, 2006

these shots are great lafoto,i like shooting into the sun especialy when it comes to nature shots

heip · Sep 17, 2006

You need to number them! Where have I seen that before? Just kidding, #4 rocks!

mentos_007 · Sep 17, 2006

hmmm you know what? what do you think... maybe this might work as well... try using a fill flash (half of it's power or even less) to light the front ground, leaving background light too? (short exposure speed so the light from the flash won't bump back from things that are far away, but you'll get the light from the sun there? )

CopenKagan · Sep 17, 2006

I like 3 and 4 the best.

David · Sep 17, 2006

All wonderful images, but I'm going to go with no 3 as my favourite, then 4, then 2 and then 1.

No 3 has direct, reflected and filtered light in the one shot, and therefore captures the differing lights found in a wood perfectly. There is something about light being filtered through leaves that gives an image an indefinable something. I always find filtered light peaceful and the green glow of filtered woodland light is so calming. The other thing that draws me to the image is the relative lack of scale/height. Despite it too being shot in portrait it lacks the height of the others, and seems to suggest a lower, almost voyeuristic view of the wood. This is assisted by the two trees framing the image and the shallow depth of field. You can see the image has depth, but you can't quite make it out what's back there which gives it an intriguing quality. I was put in mind of a very dark and dense woodland, with just this one patch of light reaching the ground, almost like an oasis in the gloom. Great contrast, wonderful light, and a certain something that drew me to it.

No 4 I like because of the way my eye was drawn around the image. The intense sunlight in the lower left of the image grabbed my eye, which was then drawn up the reflected, almost translucent light on the thin branches of the tree above it. I found myself wanting to look up further into the source of the light, and the fact that I couldn't was great, because I then found myself looking to the left then right at the different but bright shades of green in an otherwise low key image. Finally my eye was drawn back down to the smaller patch of bright sunlight in the lower right corner. At first glance I thought that I would personally have cropped a little tighter on the left side of the image as my eyes did not find their way there, or see any detail once I looked closer, but when I thought about it again, cropping this section out would have moved the silhouetted trees more central losing the overall balance of the image.

Nos 2 and 1 did less for me, although, that said, I still like the images, and in particular the contrast within them. I agree with the others that the lens flare is not a problem, and would even venture that it is a benefit to both images. You have a line of trees leading from bottom left to top right drawing your eye into the image, and this is nicely countered with the lens flare going across the image the other way. The sun is a key focal point in both images, and could dominate and overshadow the rest, but the lens flare (IMO) draws your eye away and back into the shot. No 2 shaded it over no 1, because the higher aperture used has kept the sun more compact, reducing the number of emanating rays. It remains a focal part of the image, but is less distracting or dominating than in no 1.

Nice shots LaFoto, I would love to see more, that is if you can put up with my subjective ramblings!

David

LaFoto · Sep 18, 2006

Hey David. Thanks!

I have hardly ever had anyone pass any such detailed comments/critique about any of my photos. And this on a thread that was long gone to the "vaults" ... what a wonderful resurrection!

Check me out through my profile and "See More Threads Started by LaFoto" ... with some luck, in some of my more recent threads the links are still there and I have not taken the photos off the photo server yet. You will find that my "photography" (taking photos is the more correct expression) is very eclectic.