I was looking over some of my images when I came across this one. The original was, frankly, a bit dull but having deepened the shadows and cropped the image I think it looks quite nice now. Over to you for CC.
I was looking over some of my images when I came across this one. The original was, frankly, a bit dull but having deepened the shadows and cropped the image I think it looks quite nice now. Over to you for CC.
Hi Ian! I think the image has potential, but you've darkened the shadows until they're solid Dmax black, which is generally regarded as undesirable, and that applies in this case. I'd be interested to see one where SOME detail is visible in the shadows, while maintaining the contrast to bring out the graphic effect of those stone columns. And I'd crop further.
Now I look again I can see another crop jumping out at me. Crop the bottom so the line of hoodoos leads into the frame, is that what you were thinking?
I do usually retain detail in shadows but I took it that far on this occasion to remove what I thought were distracting details and emphasise the lines created by the hoodoos so they zig zag through the image. How much lighter would you suggest I should make them?
The crop I've done just looks more balanced to me. I'd leave a little bit of deep shadow bottom right, so I wouldn't have the bottom of the frame cut across the sunlit area there.Perhaps a little more off the left edge, so there's just enough deeply shaded rock to frame or balance the sunlit columns. The net result is that the strong diagonal leads the eye into the frame.
I append an edit doing this and incorporating Oren's point.
How much lighter? Enough till there's something clearly visible in the shadows if you look, but not enough to be distracting to you. It may seem paradoxical, but I'm beginning to think that full black is unpopular in "realistic" images of the world because it DRAWS the eye there, looking for detail in frustration. Just my half-baked hypothesis based on nanoseconds of speculation!
It's your image, though!
Hi, assuming this is the Bryce canyon, I'd try to bring it the orange more. Those rocks are way more colorful in real life...
Yes Oren, it was taken at Bryce Canyon. I did boost the colours a little but was wary of over saturating it to unrealistic levels. Anyway, I've taken the advice you've both given and here's a re-edited version.
This is very much what I was thinking, Ian. I've done a re-re-edit...
I haven't been to Bryce Canyon, but we have similar vivid rocks here in Oz. I'm used to seeing photos of the US canyons with what look to me like garish colours, especially from US photographers, who seem to prefer more vivid colours. I mean no offence to anyone here, but find it interesting that there are broad national/cultural taste biases, all part of art's interest to me. (Ian, I notice you're a typically restrained Pom! Definitely no offence there - I was born in England, and despite leaving at age 3, and my Slavic DNA stiil feel a kinship with the place...)
To me, the upper left rocks look a bit washed-out in terms of aesthetic appeal, so I've upped saturation there. The central pillar is a bit bright and washed-out too, so I've altered it accordingly. I've increased the contrast in the shadows, and exposure very slightly further still. To avoid distraction by the rather busy bottom left corner and draw the eye into the frame, I've finally added a vignette.
Ideally, there'd be a little more "breathing space" above that central spire.
On reflection, what I've done overall is to even the brightness and saturation of the lit rocks, to emphasise the overall pattern of russet and (near-) black, as that is where a lot of the image's appeal lies - for me!
Interesting image. Thanks for posting.
Thanks Chris, that's a nice edit. I'm definitely restrained but as I'm Welsh I'm not sure if I'm a pom or not!
The central spire is tight to the top of the frame because there was a hoodoo directly above it in the background, part of which I cloned out.