Well, other posters have said it, but it perhaps bears repeating: both the de-sat and the stretch seem to have no point to them. What did you gain? What did your image gain? Stretch-wise, the interest in the organic forms of the tree has been dissipated - it has been given an unnatural feel - the curves of the branches are just all wrong. Selective de-sat is a process I have little affection for anyhow, but here it seems almost boubly pointless: that big blue sky was surely big enough anyhow, and was there really such colour in the grass and houses to make a distraction here?
I just don't understand your thought-processes in taking this approach I'm afraid. To my eye, what interest there was would be in the delicate patterns and shapes of the bare tree, but, as stated, I think stretching that has destroyed the interest.
The tree in the center is so dominant that there is really nothing else for the eye to explore in the photo. The result is a bit of an uninteresting photo.
To me, this image looks like it was stretched...something about the proportions are just skewed that way. In either way, I like the strong color of the sky, and that the remainder of the image looks to be B&W. It is an interesting shot, so much so that I felt led to comment (it takes something to make people stop and stay a while, so good on you for that). Have fun...good luck.
no impact, and no distinguished point of interest, i know the tree in the middle is centered, but all the other trees, which are underexposed, distract from it, and nothing about the center tree draws my eye in
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
Photographer found comment helpful.
