Autumn Oak

These oaks always make a good subject . . . looks like you caught this one in peak color. I generally like the shot but might experiment with a crop off the top. The portion of the tree extending out of the frame is a bit distracting. A bit more room on the bottom might have been ideal, but that's comparatively minor (and at 28mm you had no way to achieve that).

Really like this one. Great off center placement of the tree - everything flows nicely. My only cropping out suggestion is the very top of the tree were those leafless twisted branches seem to come in and out of the frame. Could clone some of it out if you think cropping the top might infringe too much on the colorful leaves. Another wonderful post.

Looks very good! I like how the orange leaves and the branches separate themselves from the sky. I like the colors as such a lot here.

Very pretty. No cropping suggestions - perhaps some cloning on top though. I do wish there was more romo at the bottom - perhaps a few steps backwards if possible. Keep 'em coming Zaynab, you're doing great!

Zaynab,

What a grand old oak - I'll bet he has many years of stories that could be told.

I really like that you filled the frame with the tree. As you mentioned with the lens widest at 28mm you were trying to fit it all it, and I think you did just that. Well, actually, parts of the tree are not all it, but here's what I try to go by. Maybe you've heard this before:

"If you're going to cut something off in the frame, do it on purpose." In other words we need to pay attention as to what's included around the edges of the frame and what's not. I think it's clear in this image that you were not going to be able to included every branch, and so for me this works because it doesn't look accidental. Hope that makes sense. It is unfortunate that the top of the tree is a bit odd and looks dead, but again, I like that you've filled the frame.

Now, along these very lines, I feel like the bottom of the tree is cut off. And as someone mentioned, perhaps you could have backed up a step or two to get the bottom of the tree. OR, as what I said above, crop more in to the bottom and make it obvious that you didn't want to include the bottom of the tree. But IMHO, if you're going to crop the bottom of the tree, you might as well exclude the meadow as well - and I just think you're better off not cropping anything, and we'll just wish for more space at the bottom. :-)

Hope this helps and not too confusing. I know I'm confused.

Lon

Goodness. Good pixels seem to run in the family. I could see a tighter crop on the top letting the leaves up there bleed out of the frame a bit.

This is a well executed capture, Zaynab. I agree with someone
else's suggestion about considering a cloning of the barren
branches at the top of the tree. Nevertheless, this image
certainly works for me.

Another fine post, Zaynab. I think the others have made some good suggestions, but I still like it as presented. Good imagery runs in the Ismail family.

Hey, that's a nice tree! I really have no nits with the comp at all. More room at the bottom would be nice too, but not necessary for me at least. My only nits are the bright colorless sky( what can you do about that?) and the very top branches of the tree aren't as aesthetic and matching to the rest of it. You have to shoot these conditions sometimes unless you always compose only portions of trees as to not include the sky, or back them up against a huge granite wall or something.

Chris