People do this style all the time but I seldom do it. By this I mean an image that shows part of something. But when I saw these trees, I decided this was only possible as a partial. I usually want the entire tree and some sky and ground as well.

Since this is out of my comfort level, I would like to hear some tips on how to do these.

I think these are great with good colors and processing.

For grand scenic landscapes there are usually a lot of elements to hold our interest; e.g., clouds, mountains, trees, shrubs, grasses, reflections, etc. This type of image is simpler in many ways. The individual leaves are not important and the patterns of color become important. Patterns is just another way of moving toward the concepts of composition. Even if not consciously done, you have selected compositions. For example in the top image, there appears to be some natural vignetting leaving the brighter areas in towards the center to help hold the viewer's attention. At the top of the image there are some nice arching tree limbs which almost frame the image. I believe you make these choices without a lot of thought. I think you would have more consistent success with more conscious effort and maybe even some post processing to intensify the effects.

I did a quick rework of the first image. I intensified the vignetting and lights and shadows to try to pull the viewer's eye into the scene and kill some of the flatness. This edit is way overdone to stress a direction that could be taken with images such as this.

Thanks Jim, I was sure you would have some input. I always think of vignetting in the same way I think of a flat tire on my car. that is a bad thing that should not happen. But I see your point.

I do a lot of stuff systematically, but I try to let subject and composition be more intuitive. It might become very mechanical to have an engineer apply rules to art.

I was also wondering about the composition itself. There does not seem to be any center of interest, leading lines etc. Just a blob of color.

I started to see a magenta cast and started working it some more. I ended up getting into Lab and goosing the red and green a bit, then sharpened some more. It has more pop, but still seems incomplete to me because it lacks a home.

It might seem "incomplete" to your somewhat structured preferences ... but it is nicely done. Your visit to LAB has done a nice job of presenting a varietal of hue's.

Eye candy for exploring hues, tonal values, shapes & lines. While there isn't a nexus or obvious focal point ... the eye continues to be drawn in a tantalizing manner, much like viewing a harmonious kaleidoscope with its perpetuity quality.

I can see this one as a wall hanger. It is very opposing to your "slab-o-rock" preference, but it has a nice quality to it .. almost pointillistic, almost watercolor ... yet neither. I like nice tonal transition interplay, and mostly find them in B&W, not so often in color.

BTW ... did I mention I kinda like it.

My only nit might be some blue in a few branches ... hard to tell at this size. Just something to check for before printing.

Hi Kent. You pose one of my existential problems. I thought somebody would like this and I sort of like it myself, which is why I took it. But it does not contain any clues as to what I did or how I would do another. Sort of like shooting from the hip as opposed to aiming.

But then I tend to do compositions that way, intuitive versus analytically. But my intuition fails me for these scenes.

As to the blue stems, you should have seen it before I desaturated blue. I saw no other way but to do it globally, as I did not wish to be painting stems. But when I went further, I started losing something in the leaves.

These maples turn red, but there are also some older perhaps dryer leaves that get a purple cast. To much blue reduction started turning those leaves to a muddy brown or something.

There must be a more elegant way to select just a small range of colors for correction but I don't know of it.

Here is the lab treatment to the vertical.