Please let me know what you think of this shot.

Thanks,
Paul

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/photophore/328755773/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/328755773_1ee7ed6e8f_o.jpg" width="640" height="424" alt="." /></a>

Considering the lack of color, I'm thinking this might work well as a B & W. Other than that, a polarizing filter would have been nice.

Mike said it all.

Mike & Frog,

Thanks for commenting. I tried a B&W conversion and just couldn't make it work. I think I didn't like it because it was too high key. I actually like the colors in this shot, so maybe I just need to work on bringing them out more.

I used a polarizer for this shot, although I'm not sure it made any difference. The sky was very overcast 3 of the 4 days I was there.

Paul

Paul, try your equalize filter. You may like it.
I did and it made everything richer.
If you like, I could post it.

Paul, try your equalize filter. You may like it.
I did and it made everything richer.
If you like, I could post it.

I'm not familiar with that filter. Is it a photoshop filter? Go ahead and post your edit, if you like. I'm at work, so I won't be able to do any edits until this evening.

Thanks,
Paul

Its in my photoshop elements 5.0.
Filters/adjustments/equalize. I use it occassionally. Sometimes it works and sometimes its awful...lol.

This kind of thing is hard to judge from one monitor to another. I thought the photo had more punch when I loaded it up last night, but now it does look kind of flat, especially compared to your edit. But, I think your edit is a little over done. I think I'd prefer something in between. Your edit looks like the black level has been bumped up in a "levels" adjustment. I'm using PS 7.0, and I'm not sure if it has that Equalize filter or not. I'll have to mess with it more tonight.

Thanks,
Paul

I don't know Paul..
The composition is good, but the lighting feels a bit bland, so it doesn't hold my attention very long...
And I think there is too much depth of field, my eye goes back and forth easily between the rock and the mountains which is kind of confussing.
Brian

I don't know Paul..
The composition is good, but the lighting feels a bit bland, so it doesn't hold my attention very long...
And I think there is too much depth of field, my eye goes back and forth easily between the rock and the mountains which is kind of confussing.
Brian

Hi Brian,

Thanks for commenting. I agree about the lighting. It was overcast most of the time I was there, but I tried to make the most of it by adding lots of close up detail, like this rock. I also thought the flat lighting worked well with the cool colors, because it was quite cold when I was there and the desert is a very inhospitable place in general. I guess that's not working though.

I don't understand why lots of DOF is bad. I thought that was the goal with landscape shots? If I had blurred the back ground, would the foreground have enough detail to hold your attention?

Thanks,
Paul

Paul,

I would check your monitor calibration after the comments from the previous 'City of Gold' thread because I could see the separation of the boats. That would account for the very bright version you put up. I do agree that Frog has gone a tad OTT.


My problem with this photo is the perspective - you seem to be too low and need to be a bit higher up the hill to give separation between the green brush and the foreground. Its interesting but the light wasn't with you on this one - to overcast.

Roger

Paul,

I would check your monitor calibration after the comments from the previous 'City of Gold' thread because I could see the separation of the boats. That would account for the very bright version you put up. I do agree that Frog has gone a tad OTT.


My problem with this photo is the perspective - you seem to be too low and need to be a bit higher up the hill to give separation between the green brush and the foreground. Its interesting but the light wasn't with you on this one - to overcast.

Roger

So, you think my original was too bright? Is it just too flat or is it actually too bright? I think I need a new monitor at home, but it has been calibrated. The one I'm using at work is not calibrated, but my shot only looks dull on this monitor...not too bright. If anything, I would say the opposite. Is your monitor an LCD?

Thanks,
Paul

So, you think my original was too bright? Is it just too flat or is it actually too bright? I think I need a new monitor at home, but it has been calibrated. The one I'm using at work is not calibrated, but my shot only looks dull on this monitor...not too bright. If anything, I would say the opposite. Is your monitor an LCD?

Thanks,
Paul

Its to flat - its not to bright - as I said I think the lighting didn't help you with this photo. I use both types and there is a minute difference between the two once they are calibrated. I am currently on the LCD which the reminder came up this morning to recalibrate so two weeks since it was last done.

Roger

Its to flat - its not to bright - as I said I think the lighting didn't help you with this photo. I use both types and there is a minute difference between the two once they are calibrated. I am currently on the LCD which the reminder came up this morning to recalibrate so two weeks since it was last done.

Roger

Thanks for the clarification, Roger. I agree about the flat lighting, but I'll still be shopping for a new LCD screen soon. :D

Paul

The general impression I get from these critique comments is that the flat lighting is a deal breaker. Is there any situation when flat lighting is okay for a landscape? Is there anything else I could have done to deal with the flat lighting...besides waiting for better weather?

I often try to shoot photos like this in an almost documentary style (almost...but not exactly). I wanted the photo to portray the mood of actually being there, as well as show some of the interesting terrain of the area. Is that something that only works when there is perfect photographic lighting? Is it a waste of time to take photos of places that are not overly colorful, or at times of day other than early morning and late afternoon?

I don't mean to sound argumentative or discount anyone's opinion. I'm just trying to get the most out of this critique.

Thanks,
Paul

I think I've changed my mind on this.
I believe that your picture shows it as it was, cold and desolate.
I'm thinking it will give that feel even more in a large print. Mine is too much.