Critiques
This photo currently has 8 conforming critiques.
Since there are already at least three conforming critiques, if you write a conforming critique for this photo, then you will receive only the usual one critique point every time another user rates your critique helpful.
Write a critique
If you find one of these critiques especially helpful--or especially unhelpful--then please take a moment to register your opinion by clicking one of the buttons to the right of the critique.
|
|
from darryldmytriw/Darryl (1,380) 
on November 3, 2009 8:40:56 PM CST
(1)
I'd like to give you 3 thumbs on this, but like some other commentators, I feel that the picture comes up just a little short. It isn't easy to figure out why, but there are three points that I think are significant. First is the crop, which I feel is a little too tight on the right, and too loose on the left. Second is the complaint others have made that the foreground seems to merge into the background. Part of this is due to the simple fact that the surfaces are all the same color, but there's another factor, too: the tops of the two rearmost pillars in the foreground are lined up with the bottom of the darker rock stratum in the back ground. If you could get a lower position for the camera, it would raise these tops somewhat, and with a little local enhancement, the tops could be separated more from the background. Alternatively, if you could get a higher camera position, the tops of the pillars would contrast better against the lighter strata in the back. I just have a feeling that you wouldn't be able to do this. In either case, I think this would help to make the picture seem more three dimensional. Lastly, I think you've been a little too cautious with the lighting and it comes out somewhat flat. As someone else has suggested, a touch of levels or curves (or brightness and contrast) could help the tonal range a lot. I hope you can go back to this spot; it's worth a lot of photos.
Reply
Show ratings
|
From chuckgallagher/Chuck (1,002) 
on November 3, 2009 9:28:57 PM CST
Thanks for the critique Darryl. I have other photos from the Bisti that I will try to incorporate some of your suggestions.
Reply
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from moondogu733/Will (67)
on November 3, 2009 5:36:25 PM CST
(1)
Stunning location and contrast in the stones. And it looks like this was taken in a dried lake bed giving it light earth tones which works well against the darker upper parts of the ranges.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from farradhim/Jacline (37,832)
on November 3, 2009 2:41:47 PM CST
(1)
I do find this image of great details, with nice soft pastel colors, textures are also great, it does lack depth though, not enough range of shades, I guess, and I would recommend cloning out the partial rock at bottom left border.
love to look at this, though:)
Jacline
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from sickmind/Igor (114)
on November 3, 2009 2:26:43 AM CST
(2)
Don't know what for, but you (it seems) intentionally narrowed dynamic diapason of the picture (http://sickmind.users.photofile.ru/photo/sickmind/3777954/87178049.jpg). You can make picture more dramatic simply applying gamma adjustments in PS or elsewhere. This is the only thing i dislike. In the other respects - very beautiful and well composed picture :)
Regards, Igor.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from hstiver/Harold (5,692)
on November 2, 2009 11:18:42 PM CST
(3)
You have nice light and color to work with and so excellent possibilities of a result.
I don't think the composition is successful. The viewer doesn't know where to look, the foreground is too jumbled and it blocks the background. You also have clipped element in the front left and side.
You need to simplify your foreground, perhaps a single formation, preferably with nice symmetry. If you place it on one or the other side of the frame, you can open up the background and lead the viewer to it. I suspect that a lower aspect would be beneficial in doing this.
I would also work on processing to bring the strata lines out more, probably just a bit of curves.
The sky has a lot of character and is nicely exposed.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from thedavidwright/David (8,820)
on November 2, 2009 9:41:14 PM CST
(3)
You've captured this scene with wonderful clarity and sharpness, the light is good, and the sky interesting. So why isnt' it more appealing? I think the main problem is that the tops of several of the hoodoos (?) merge with the backbground rocks. Either the distant rocks for the central and upper three hoodoos, or some middle ground rock for that balanced rock on the right. I almost get the feeling that if you had walked past this foreground feature and shot the same view, it'd be more interesting. FWIW, you've displayed this image pretty flat, also. An 'auto levels' command in PS gives a greater range of light. But the main message is that this foreground bunch of rocks just doesn't work.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
From chuckgallagher/Chuck (1,002)
on November 2, 2009 10:08:28 PM CST
Thanks Favid, I see what you mean about the merging rocks. I will try bumping up the contrast.
Reply
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from billhubbard/Bill (20,116)
on November 2, 2009 9:38:37 PM CST
(3)
Very nice shot Chuck. I was there a few years ago but didn't go too far in as it was very hot and we were without a GPS devise. You've captured the other-worldly formations as nice foreground to those mounds in the background. Like the soft coloring and light but perhaps could use just a bit more contrast.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
from wdyer/Wayne (300)
on November 2, 2009 9:36:33 PM CST
(1)
Lovely tones and colour. Great comp with some very nice detail and sharp all the way to the horizon. A wall hanger.
Reply
Show ratings
|
|
|
Comments
Comments are different from critiques. Comments carry no rating, you may write more than one comment per photo, and you may comment on your own photos. If you want to rate this photo, then you should write a critique instead.
Add a comment
|
From practicallyprudent/Alexander (977)
on November 2, 2009 11:08:36 PM CST
I wish there was something here to help my eyes get a sense of scale here. Everyone basically covered your photo with some good crits so I'll just pose a question. The objects in the for foreground, are they very very tall or not so very tall? What's throwing off my eyes I believe is the angle here, combine it with the lights and my eyes aren't sure exactly of size. I'm sure if I was there or had seen this place I could extrapolate easily enough, but as is my eyes are kinda going wow! I can't even use the wwell exposed texture. The shadows seem to be the only thing helping, but even then I can only really venture a guess. Are the rock formations in the foreground about human height? In the end I really love this photo, my eyes are bugged out, but in a good way I promise!~alex
Reply
|
|
From chuckgallagher/Chuck (1,002)
on November 2, 2009 11:37:01 PM CST
Thanks Alexander, The formations are deceptively small. The foreground objects are about 6 to 10 feet tall. It is a strange place, I get the feeling I am not on Earth.
Reply
|
|
Return to photos
|
