I like them all. I'm inspired again to make a point to visit that location. I'll offer not so much C&C, but what I'd question for my own -
In the last image, which I find most compelling of the three, that right-most forward water structure pulls the eye to the edge there, where I 1/2 expect I need to scroll the image to reveal the rest of the frame to the right. I might crop out that feature (1/2 way between that and the next structure diagonally up to the left), which in turn would mean letting go of some of the top portion of the sky (which wouldn't be much of a loss). At least, I'd see if that would keep my eye more engaged within the framing, and still retain interest with balance. Moving forward, for the likes of a structure such as is on the lower left, leaving a bit of breathing room between it and the frame might be considered. Especially if that's to be printed/matted/framed (for matting involves cropping bits of the composition's framing further).
I'd likely have put more hand to a post proc. treatment (just can't help it), but I appreciate the truthful expression of these moments. Nice work.
Ghost Tufas. Dan, some departures from the standard Mono posts indeed. for my eye, the last shot has the most promise. If you had some of the taller formations using this exposure and azimuth, you would half truly some wall art. as is it, #3 is still exceptional, but not a Mono comp. 1 and 2 are very nice though.
I am with Tim, #3 is really sweet. In #1 and 2, I think there is a bit more processing needed. I would say that the tufa's need to be brighter first off. The sky in #1 seems a bit bright, and I might add a little more saturation, and in #2, besides brightening up the tufa's, I would slightly brighten the whole scene.
Lovely and different shots at Mono. I like.
In the first, the tufas blend into the bg shore too much to stand out, but I love the light. I'm with Jim on the 2nd, but it's still my fave of these. Really lovely soft light!
Love the light and reflections and silhouettes in the 3rd.
I'm assuming you are looking for honest C&C and not necessarily the meaningless "attaboys" we see on this board all the time. Personally, #3 is the only image that has potential, #1 and #2 not so much. In my opinion, #1 and #2 are poorly framed, the lighting is wrong and the composition is weak, and the focus is off.
Suggestions:
1. Spend more time framing your compositions. Be careful of tangencies around the edges.
2. Watch for the dramatic light - you are in a great location, you just need to wait for the light. (That's what makes #3 the strongest image of the three, the light...)
3. Make sure your focus is sharp, in low-light situations, close the iris and extend the exposure time.
4. Analyze #3 and figure out what makes this image so much better than the other two.
5. Keep shooting!
Denny,
Thanks for the brutally honest critique
I need that.
I agree that #1 & #2 don't achieve a minimal standard, especially #1.
It is too cluttered & all the things you said. Not sure why I tried to rescue it now
For #2, I was waiting on the light and was trying to use the clouds position to impart some energy in it. But as you noticed, I missed the boat on basic technical stuff that I normally don't. I think I sometimes take the shot when I know it misses, "hoping" some other quality will save it. Hmm.
I was using a decent tripod, MLU, high f-stop (f16), probably pushing the diffraction threshold.
For #3, you say it has potential. Does it meet a minimal standard?
What would you suggest for improvements?
Now the difference between the first two and the third is more than technical.
On the first two I was hurried, left some stuff in the truck, etc. It was crowded and I was "searching" for a good spot, but not quite happy with any. I was probably shooting just to shoot a some point.
In the third shot, I was early to the location, relaxed & only two other guys were anywhere near. I was intentional in my choice of location and was patient with the light.
I wanted the silhouettes. I would have preferred the spired tufas but that was not the type of structures to be found at this location.
So my problem seems to be getting in the right frame of mind and knowing when to walk away when things aren't right. For now, I only seem to have it as hindsight.
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "Be careful of tangencies around the edges."
I think you mean objects near the edges, such as a rock that the border forms a tangent line to.
Yes, #3 meets the minimum standard for a landscape shot. You have good light, good clouds and a good location. What seems to be missing is a good anchor in the foreground, something that moves the eye through the image, possibly one of the silhouetted boulders - placed in the bottom right portion of the frame. The strongest area in any photograph is the bottom right - #3 doesn't have anything in this area...
Ideally, a large spired tufa would have added a lot to the overall composition, too bad there weren't any at his spot. The boulder in the bottom left of the frame is a little too close to the edge, creating a tangency, make sure all of your elements in a composition have a little "breathing room" around them...
#1 and #2 look like hurried shots, so I'm glad to hear that was the case and you recognize it. You'll become a better photographer knowing why some images turn out better than others...
Landscape photography takes a lot ot time, effort, patience, luck and preparation. I seldom "get it right" the first time. Either the sun sets in the wrong spot, the composition isn't quite right, I didn't get to the location early enough or didn't stay long enough, which requires a second and even third try before I finally get a reasonable shot. Always take what you learn from each shoot and apply it to the next shoot, the quality of your work will improve each time. I also try to have an idea of the type of composition I'm looking for prior to arriving at the location, which really helps to eliminate the stress of trying to find "the shot" as the sun slowly sinks on the horizon!
Here is a shot taken about 5 min earlier than the #3 shot,
that is a bit more saturated and a slightly wider view.
Unfortunately it doesn't have an anchor in the LRC either.
I never thought specifically about having an anchor on the right.
I will keep this in mind.
