Just to be clear, the dead pine was found up at 8000 feet in the White Mountains of central California… it isn’t the proper species name. But I thought it had an interesting shape and the clouds were nice. Wish I had gotten down on my knees and had the tree silhouetted against the sky. But I’m not sure I would have been able to get back up. Besides, it was windy and cold and I wanted to get back to the car.
These two images are of the same Bristlecone Pine, but just from a slightly different spot. I like them both and thought it was interesting how a slight change in shooting angle/location can change an image so much. A reminder of one of the basic rules of photography: Keep your feet moving and work the shot.
This Bristlecone Pine was growing right on top of a rock pile. My guess is that at one point in the past, the soil was present on top of the rock and has since eroded. The erosion of soil around the root systems is one of the causes of death for bristlecones. That’s one of the reasons that they request visitors to stay on the pathways: to keep erosion to a minimum.
Here’s another image that “stumped” me (sorry, couldn’t help it). Does this “work better” in color or black and white?
When I am working on editing photos, I usually check to see how an image looks when converted to black and white. Sometimes it is a surprise. Sometimes it is a no-brainer. However, sometimes it is a struggle to decide which image has more visual impact. This is an example of one such image. I like both. How about you?
For the non-technical folks: digital cameras capture raw data in a numerical format: it’s just a string of numbers. Either in-camera or in the computer, the data is converted to a set of (not entirely arbitrary) corresponding colors … or, in the case of black and white, tonal values. If converted in the computer, the photographer can make a choice of converting to black and white. If in the camera: the manufacturer decides what tonal values (and colors) are “correct”.