The Pig in the Forest - Brockenhurst.

[evacguy]

The 'Pig in the Forest' is the original Pig hotel in the Pig group, and one of my favourites. The Pig hotels are old country homes turned into boutique hotels in the country side. I also love the 'Pig on the Beach', the 'Pig near Bath' and the 'Pig in Devon'. They all have their own kitchen gardens, bees, cattle, pigs, deer, etc which eventually makes its way to the dinner table. The oak in front of the hotel is a Turkey Oak. The staff claim it was planted in 1550, but I'm not sure that is correct. Turkey oaks were introduced into England in about 1750, nevertheless, it is a wonderfull tree. I produced several edits of the photograph, the first one is the final version, while the last one is the original. Unfortunately, I had to leave the last pavement light in the photograph as when I cloned it out, the shadow looked unnatural. Let me know which you like best and any suggestions to improve the shot and the post processing.

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 100

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 100

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 100

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Ed, not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to work out the process that happens in your mind because I'm completely bamboozled.

Do you see an editable keepable image here? I think you need to start paying major attention to how the image looks rather than the story or your emotional connection behind it. Remember, an observer is connecting to the photo, they aren't connecting to what you experienced on the day. You shouldn't even be taking photos like this, they're not even a holidayer's snapshots...

I've no doubt that it's a wonderful tree in the flesh, but without break through lighting or something it just looks like green is wasting 65% of the image.

I think you are driven by emotion which is tricking you to thinking that your emotion projects into an image and makes it look great. If you can create emotion IN an image that is priceless, but your emotion doesn't project into an image it just doesn't work like that.

I think you could really do well by doing some photography classes, or at least getting really stuck into some YouTube videos about composition and lighting.

I might be a bit abrupt here mate, but I would just really like to see you get some better quality and consistency with your posts. You deserve it, you obviously care about what you are doing here.

 

[alexpler]

As ironic as it may sound, the original picture is the only one that kind of works.

If you crop any part of the tree, you minimize its impact because the sense of size is lost.

If you crop the white wall to the left, the building becomes invisible, it just looks a grey wall instead.

If you clone out the lighting posts but you feel forced to leave one, then it gets all the attention from the viewers and distracts them from the rest of the scene. Now it's all you see: that annoying object in the front. In the original picture, the posts are just a natural part of the scene and don't get any attention, I thought they were a fence or something.

But the real problem with the shoot is the lack of actual focus. Were you trying to depict the hotel? But it's hidden in shadows... The big oak? But it's cut... How the building and the tree compare to each other? But that red car is the real standout of the picture (and that was obviously not the intention of your composition). That person sitting in the backyard? But he's barely seen...

Overall I would recommend getting back there in another moment, when the sun favors the hotel façade if possible, and decide what you want to show... And base your composition on that. Don't try to fit everything in (even what you wouldn't want to be there). Try another angle. A wider lens maybe (so you can get the oak in full glory), or the opposite, a closer, more intimate shot (which zooms in the hotel architecture, maybe with a hint of the oak leaves to honor its presence).

And when you shoot, try not to think "I'll crop that later", "I can clone that out anyway". No. Try to get a picture you're satisfied with in camera.

Hope you find that helpful.

 

[evacguy]

As ironic as it may sound, the original picture is the only one that kind of works.

If you crop any part of the tree, you minimize its impact because the sense of size is lost.

If you crop the white wall to the left, the building becomes invisible, it just looks a grey wall instead.

If you clone out the lighting posts but you feel forced to leave one, then it gets all the attention from the viewers and distracts them from the rest of the scene. Now it's all you see: that annoying object in the front. In the original picture, the posts are just a natural part of the scene and don't get any attention, I thought they were a fence or something.

But the real problem with the shoot is the lack of actual focus. Were you trying to depict the hotel? But it's hidden in shadows... The big oak? But it's cut... How the building and the tree compare to each other? But that red car is the real standout of the picture (and that was obviously not the intention of your composition). That person sitting in the backyard? But he's barely seen...

Overall I would recommend getting back there in another moment, when the sun favors the hotel façade if possible, and decide what you want to show... And base your composition on that. Don't try to fit everything in (even what you wouldn't want to be there). Try another angle. A wider lens maybe (so you can get the oak in full glory), or the opposite, a closer, more intimate shot (which zooms in the hotel architecture, maybe with a hint of the oak leaves to honor its presence).

And when you shoot, try not to think "I'll crop that later", "I can clone that out anyway". No. Try to get a picture you're satisfied with in camera.

Hope you find that helpful.

Thanks guys. I wanted to capture the magnificance of the old oak and the grandeur of the building. Unfortuntantly, I was a little constrained with the 70mm lower end of my lens and the fencing around the property, I was as far back as I could go - any further back and I would be in amongst the deers. And this was the only angle that I could take to minimise the number of vehicles in the shot - the car parks were full. So framing the image was challenging. I agree Alex that cropping the stumps and lights out of the image, but leaving the one in actually draws attention to the one remaining light.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I'd be getting in closer Ed. Basically having the tree trunk to the side in the foreground with the beautiful doorway as the background, focusing on the tree trunk with the background slightly out of focus. F7.1 or f8. Something like that.

I've dug up a bit of an example. Although I had enough background information to want to get in focus. Whereas what I've suggested for you, I think there wouldn't be enough background information to want everything sharp, it would do better with full focus on the tree trunk.

View attachment 45670

 

[Brownie]

I'd be getting in closer Ed. Basically having the tree trunk to the side in the foreground with the beautiful doorway as the background, focusing on the tree trunk with the background slightly out of focus. F7.1 or f8. Something like that

But if the subject really is the tree, the correct answer is a wider lens or different angle to get the entire tree, or at least the entire span.

The cars must go, the person must go, the posts can go or stay. Ed's description makes me wonder if one could ever make that a usable shot. Is there ever a time when the cars are gone and the light is good? If not, then one would have to abandon the idea and do as Clint suggest. Move in closer and make the subject the portico with the tree's trunk as a bystander.

 

[evacguy]

But if the subject really is the tree, the correct answer is a wider lens or different angle to get the entire tree, or at least the entire span.

The cars must go, the person must go, the posts can go or stay. Ed's description makes me wonder if one could ever make that a usable shot. Is there ever a time when the cars are gone and the light is good? If not, then one would have to abandon the idea and do as Clint suggest. Move in closer and make the subject the portico with the tree's trunk as a bystander.

My (neglected) 50mm lens would have done a better job - but I didn't have it with me. A 35mm lens would probably be better still. Can't help the cars or the person. I waited for ages for the chap on the bench to go, but he stayed there for ages. Same with the cars. The car parks empty out a bit after dinner when the day trippers have gone and its only the residents, but then its too dark. The hounds by the door are interesting, but I really wanted to get the tree + building. Next time I'll bring a shorter focal length lens.

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 89.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Brownie]

My (neglected) 50mm lens would have done a better job - but I didn't have it with me. A 35mm lens would probably be better still. Can't help the cars or the person. I waited for ages for the chap on the bench to go, but he stayed there for ages. Same with the cars. The car parks empty out a bit after dinner when the day trippers have gone and its only the residents, but then its too dark. The hounds by the door are interesting, but I really wanted to get the tree + building. Next time I'll bring a shorter focal length lens.View attachment 45672

The red car, the posts, and the person would be easy to get rid of in post if saving the shot was critical. Not sure I could lose the truck, someone better than me probably could.

Do you have a wider lens other than the 50? Maybe consider the 24-105/4 or the Tamron 28-200. Both excellent lenses, not ridiculously priced, and very versatile.

 

[evacguy]

The red car, the posts, and the person would be easy to get rid of in post if saving the shot was critical. Not sure I could lose the truck, someone better than me probably could.

Do you have a wider lens other than the 50? Maybe consider the 24-105/4 or the Tamron 28-200. Both excellent lenses, not ridiculously priced, and very versatile.

50mm is my shortest lens. I’m thinking of getting a sort fast prime, not sure which one.

 

[Brownie]

50mm is my shortest lens. I’m thinking of getting a sort fast prime, not sure which one.

Short fast primes are nice, but if you only have a few lenses to draw on (and judging by the things you shoot), a wide zoom will serve you well. From what I see you tend to shoot smaller apertures anyway.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

But if the subject really is the tree, the correct answer is a wider lens or different angle to get the entire tree, or at least the entire span.

Exactly. If you are truly trying to achieve a shot of the whole tree then you use the correct lens to do so. If the lens on hand cannot achieve your desired shot then you must change plan to deliver something in accordance to the lenses capabilities. As I've said, he had an emotional connection to what he had in mind and couldn't disconnect from it. If it isn't working you need to face reality and adjust to what will work otherwise he'll be left clutching at straws time and time again.

 

[alexpler]

Thanks guys. I wanted to capture the magnificance of the old oak and the grandeur of the building. Unfortuntantly, I was a little constrained with the 70mm lower end of my lens and the fencing around the property, I was as far back as I could go - any further back and I would be in amongst the deers. And this was the only angle that I could take to minimise the number of vehicles in the shot - the car parks were full. So framing the image was challenging. I agree Alex that cropping the stumps and lights out of the image, but leaving the one in actually draws attention to the one remaining light.

Yes I thought that the 70mm were too close for what you had in mind. But as there were so many distractions (the cars, the person, the posts) maybe you could have tried the other way around, your 200mm end...

I would have tried something like this with what you were given... (Much like the composition that Clint suggested).

You have the hotel, you have the oak, you get the scale, no distractions, suddenly the light becomes interesting... And I'm sure that a step to the front or to the side and the 200mm compression would have removed the posts from the frame.

Try getting back another moment to see what you can think of!

 

[alexpler]

Another possibility... Not that close, with the oak as the main subject. The vertical framing reinforces its shape and dominance.

The truck is there as a human presence reminder but without distracting too much (same colors as the hotel, same light and shadows as the trunk). It tells a story because it shows that it's not an abandoned place (which you could think at first glance), there are visitors.

Even the posts kind of lead you into the frame, I like them here. They are not in the way, they are the way.

When you find some obstacles try to use them creatively for your advantage.

 

[evacguy]

Another possibility... Not that close, with the oak as the main subject. The vertical framing reinforces its shape and dominance.

The truck is there as a human presence reminder but without distracting too much (same colors as the hotel, same light and shadows as the trunk). It tells a story because it shows that it's not an abandoned place (which you could think at first glance), there are visitors.

Even the posts kind of lead you into the frame, I like them here. They are not in the way, they are the way.

View attachment 45686

When you find some obstacles try to use them creatively for your advantage.

Thanks Alex, while both crops you have suggested are good pictures in their own right, the first one does not work for me as it does not convey what I was trying to caputre, the magnificance of the old oak and the grandeur of the building. The second one is better as you begin to get a feel for the size and beauty of the old oak, but does not do the tree justice.

 

[Brownie]

Thanks Alex, while both crops you have suggested are good pictures in their own right, the first one does not work for me as it does not convey what I was trying to caputre, the magnificance of the old oak and the grandeur of the building. The second one is better as you begin to get a feel for the size and beauty of the old oak, but does not do the tree justice.

Ed, this is exactly what we're gently trying to tell you. Based on your comments, your images don't meet that same criterion. If the image doesn't work at the level you envision, then it doesn't work. It may be ok as a snapshot of a memory. In this case there are too many obstacles to the vision, and thus the image. The cars, the person, the light, the focal length etc.

The point is we're offering critique to help you along, based on your OP. I think a few of us have mentioned to you in this and another thread that getting a good composition in-camera goes a long way. A crop for composition should be minor, maybe removing a small amount of an edge or something to improve the composition, not fix it. If it has to be fixed, then it probably isn't the image you wanted to begin with.

 

[evacguy]

Ed, this is exactly what we're gently trying to tell you. Based on your comments, your images don't meet that same criterion. If the image doesn't work at the level you envision, then it doesn't work. It may be ok as a snapshot of a memory. In this case there are too many obstacles to the vision, and thus the image. The cars, the person, the light, the focal length etc.

The point is we're offering critique to help you along, based on your OP. I think a few of us have mentioned to you in this and another thread that getting a good composition in-camera goes a long way. A crop for composition should be minor, maybe removing a small amount of an edge or something to improve the composition, not fix it. If it has to be fixed, then it probably isn't the image you wanted to begin with.

Cleaned up the original a bit, this works much better for me, although the building is a little dark. But I need to go back with a shorter, faster lens!

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Brownie]

It's definitely better.

 

[iamdlewis]

But I need to go back with a shorter, faster lens!

Shorter yes, faster not necessarily. If you have a wider aperture you will have less in critical focus which may not be helpful.

My suggestion is go with the shorter lens, expose for the building, expose for the highlights, basically bracket. If you don't know how to handle that in post then just take a bunch of photos with different settings with exposing for different aspects and see what works best. Remember this is digital so extra photos are free.