I often find challenging to...

[xaviersaintcyr]

Take a picture of a forest that represent it for what it really looks...
I find this one not too bad, but I did use HDR




Picture taken @ cheakamus lake, near Whistler, Bc

 

[WesternGuy]

Not bad, but you have two problems that I can see right away.

1) There is some chromatic aberration along a few of the tree trunks, particularly where the trunks contrast directly with the sky. This can be fixed in both Lightroom and Photoshop.

2) You have the problem of convergence of the verticals. Your trees are, I assume, all vertical and yet they converge towards the top of the image. This can be fixed in Photoshop - Fix converging verticals with the Photoshop CS6 Adaptive Wide Angle filters | N-Photo.

Hope this helps.

WesternGuy

 

[ktan7]

Not bad of a photo but it looks very normal to me. Try a different angle.

 

[TimothyJinx]

You have the problem of convergence of the verticals. Your trees are, I assume, all vertical and yet they converge towards the top of the image.

WesternGuy, I have a question - why is this a bad thing? I know it's sometimes hard to read the tone of a statement so I wanted to make sure you understood I'm not trying to be smart or a jerk. I'm just curious as to why this is considered a bad thing? When I look at it, the angles and a sense of height to the trees and make them seem taller, more surreal. Thanks.

 

[WesternGuy]

You have the problem of convergence of the verticals. Your trees are, I assume, all vertical and yet they converge towards the top of the image.

WesternGuy, I have a question - why is this a bad thing? I know it's sometimes hard to read the tone of a statement so I wanted to make sure you understood I'm not trying to be smart or a jerk. I'm just curious as to why this is considered a bad thing? When I look at it, the angles and a sense of height to the trees and make them seem taller, more surreal. Thanks.

I don't know that it is a "bad" thing. It is just that when I walk through a forest and see the trees, they do not converge towards the "forest crown", rather they are parallel to each other as they reach to the sky, that's all, and I have walked through a few BC forests in my travels.

If you like it and it works for you, then, in the end, that is really all that counts. I don't think you are trying to be smart or a jerk for asking - that is how we all learn.

In case you are interested, you can run into the same "situation" when taking pictures of tall buildings in a city and we all know that they don't "converge", i.e., get closer together as they rise above the street level. Same problem with the trees - the tops do not get closer together as they rise above the forest floor.

WesternGuy

 

[Benco]

You have the problem of convergence of the verticals. Your trees are, I assume, all vertical and yet they converge towards the top of the image.

WesternGuy, I have a question - why is this a bad thing? I know it's sometimes hard to read the tone of a statement so I wanted to make sure you understood I'm not trying to be smart or a jerk. I'm just curious as to why this is considered a bad thing? When I look at it, the angles and a sense of height to the trees and make them seem taller, more surreal. Thanks.

I don't know that it is a "bad" thing. It is just that when I walk through a forest and see the trees, they do not converge towards the "forest crown", rather they are parallel to each other as they reach to the sky, that's all, and I have walked through a few BC forests in my travels.

If you like it and it works for you, then, in the end, that is really all that counts. I don't think you are trying to be smart or a jerk for asking - that is how we all learn.

In case you are interested, you can run into the same "situation" when taking pictures of tall buildings in a city and we all know that they don't "converge", i.e., get closer together as they rise above the street level. Same problem with the trees - the tops do not get closer together as they rise above the forest floor.

WesternGuy

Well...we know they don't converge but as viewed they do, it's the nature of perspective. Our brains use our knowledge to adjust what we percieve to match our expectations. to be sure with our perspective they don't appear to converge as much as they do in that photo but converge they still do. It just depend whether you want to show the trees as you see them or as you know they are.

 

[xaviersaintcyr]

Thanks westernGuy, was interesting and useful comments, it's the first time I was working those things with photoshop.

Here's the picture after I fixed the converging verticals and the chromatic aberration.



And here was the first version

 

[esteban022]

Thanks westernGuy, was interesting and useful comments, it's the first time I was working those things with photoshop.

Here's the picture after I fixed the converging verticals and the chromatic aberration.

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46044"/>

And here was the first version

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=46045"/>

They're nice pictures but they don't really tell a story, you look at it and just see tree trunks.

 

[PropilotBW]

I don't like the corrected photo...it doesn't portray the height of the trees. Like above, it looks like tree trunks. Wow, interesting! The first is better, IMO.

Constructively, you could try getting lower to the ground shooting up, or shoot straight up at the trees at your widest angle.