Mayflower

Ben Egbert

Forum Helper
Staff member
These are both very nice Ken. I especially like that the tree foliage in the first is fully isolated from the ground. The second is also very nice and has a more spring like color and brightness.
 

Ken Rennie

Well-Known Member
These are both very nice Ken. I especially like that the tree foliage in the first is fully isolated from the ground. The second is also very nice and has a more spring like color and brightness.
Thanks Ben, unfortunately trying to get into a position to separate the bottom branches from the background was impossible without introducing other elements that I wanted to exclude or hiding the bottom of the trunk. Getting into position for the first one was a bit of a challenge but worth it. Ken
 

AlanLichty

Moderator
I love the angles of the tree bottom and the ground. Are there critters that eat the leaves of this tree? That almost looks like the browse line from ungulates like deer. Neat light and colors. The flowers down in front in the second one fill in the lower right of the scene well.
 

Ken Rennie

Well-Known Member
I love the angles of the tree bottom and the ground. Are there critters that eat the leaves of this tree? That almost looks like the browse line from ungulates like deer. Neat light and colors. The flowers down in front in the second one fill in the lower right of the scene well.
Alan we do have red deer here but I don't think the shape of the trees is due to grazing. The first tree is low enough to be grazed by rabbits and red deer are tall enough to have stripped another 2 feet in height from the second one. However my ignorance on trees and deer is almost total. Ken
 

Mike Lewis

Staff Member
Ken,

I like these both - but the 2nd is more impactful to me, with both the foreground rocks and then the landscape heading off into the distance.

But now I am going to make a probably stupid, and totally arbitrary comment. This is of course just personal preference, and is not even about the images. But for me, a white border, especially that wide, really distracts my eye from the images themselves. I noticed it immediately before I even noticed the images. I am going to just guess (without going back to look) that not many of your large number of wonderful images posted here at least in the short time I have been here had this noticeable of a border. Or perhaps I am just not recalling it? And as stated above, this is TOTALLY just my own feeling, as I see many images posted with large white borders like this. But in any case, thought I should mention it, even though it is a very trivial thing that doesn't even really speak to the images themselves (which I think are very nice...)

ML
 

Ken Rennie

Well-Known Member
Ken,

But now I am going to make a probably stupid, and totally arbitrary comment. This is of course just personal preference, and is not even about the images. But for me, a white border, especially that wide, really distracts my eye from the images themselves. I noticed it immediately before I even noticed the images. I am going to just guess (without going back to look) that not many of your large number of wonderful images posted here at least in the short time I have been here had this noticeable of a border. Or perhaps I am just not recalling it? And as stated above, this is TOTALLY just my own feeling, as I see many images posted with large white borders like this. But in any case, thought I should mention it, even though it is a very trivial thing that doesn't even really speak to the images themselves (which I think are very nice...)

ML
Mike let me explain the reason for the border which is approx the luminosity of my printing paper. I produce images for printing and process them against an almost white background. I the final image is then viewed against a dark background then it will appear too bright. I used to process against a black background and produced prints that were often far too dark as my eyes were reacting to the overall darker level and opening up slightly. My wide border 300px in my original is designed to be viewed full screen and open your eyes and make the image slightly darker. Nowadays when I have a printed image I produce a digital version with a narrow 2px white border that is designed to be viewed against a dark background, this image can be approx 1 stop darker but it is not merely the "print version" darkened as I produce each to taste. Sharpening for print happens to one version and resizing and sharpening for screen the other. This is just me and how I like to work.
It is an interesting exercise to process an image against a dark background and a month later do it again against a light background and compare. If you don't print then this has no relevance. Thanks for the thought. Ken
 

JimFox

Moderator
Staff member
Very nice work Ken. Both are great trees, and it's cool that you can get them isolated like this. I think I like the shape of the tree more in #1 then in #2, but that doesn't mean that I don't like #2 as I do. But there is something about the simplicity of #1 that is appealing. I do like how you balanced the tree with those larger rocks in #2.

As for the border, most professional prints that I see use a white border. You explained a good reason for it and I use a white matte to frame all of my prints.
 

Ken Rennie

Well-Known Member
Very nice work Ken. Both are great trees, and it's cool that you can get them isolated like this. I think I like the shape of the tree more in #1 then in #2, but that doesn't mean that I don't like #2 as I do. But there is something about the simplicity of #1 that is appealing. I do like how you balanced the tree with those larger rocks in #2.

As for the border, most professional prints that I see use a white border. You explained a good reason for it and I use a white matte to frame all of my prints.
Jim if I print an image for a competition or exhibition I am usually asked for a digital image and I produce these with a very thin (2px) white border balanced to look good projected. It is a small problem on FocalWorld because of the resizing to 1200px as only 70% of my wide bordered prints are image and if resized to 1200px the actual image is fairly small. Ken
 

Mike Lewis

Staff Member
Mike let me explain the reason for the border which is approx the luminosity of my printing paper. I produce images for printing and process them against an almost white background. I the final image is then viewed against a dark background then it will appear too bright. I used to process against a black background and produced prints that were often far too dark as my eyes were reacting to the overall darker level and opening up slightly. My wide border 300px in my original is designed to be viewed full screen and open your eyes and make the image slightly darker. Nowadays when I have a printed image I produce a digital version with a narrow 2px white border that is designed to be viewed against a dark background, this image can be approx 1 stop darker but it is not merely the "print version" darkened as I produce each to taste. Sharpening for print happens to one version and resizing and sharpening for screen the other. This is just me and how I like to work.
It is an interesting exercise to process an image against a dark background and a month later do it again against a light background and compare. If you don't print then this has no relevance. Thanks for the thought. Ken

Ken,

Well then, that makes perfect sense. I do print, but these days after having fallen in love with images printed on metal, I send all my stuff out, and usually end up getting metal prints with no frames that have a foam hanger block on back, so they essentially float and have no inherent border color, just take whatever color the wall they are hung on is painted with. But I have experienced the effect you are mentioning when I was printing on my own 13 x 19 printer. Very good point, I did not think of that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your approach :)

ML
 
Top Bottom