Hello forum. As this is the critique group, I'm searching for some opinions regarding a few compositions. I found this set of two hoodoo in Utah and I spent some time with different focal lengths (from 16 to 200mm) in order to show or highlight different relationships between these two remarkable structures. I shot from low viewpoints and from all around them. The lighting the whole time was in thick clouds, therefore like a giant softbox. It even snowed lightly on me part of the time.
But now my dilemma is choosing which is the winner. Please give me some feedback and help me choose which one stands out as better than the others.
It's interesting to see how much impact the 'ultrasoft' lighting has. Compositionally,I guess I'd go with #8 for an "as is" choice. It seems to have the most cohesive leading lines with both kind of looking at each other, scale, balance and lack of competing distractions (comparatively). When I start thinking at reworks, then several come to mind @ making changes.
Of course, with so much to choose from and the ability to tweak in PP, they could all become much different than they currently are. It's almost like you've got a blank palette (odd I know) from which to work from due to the lighting (lack thereof) clues. In that manner, it would seem that you have tremendous lattitude in how to "paint" your lighting in to draw your viewer where you want them to go.
The giant softbox seems like it is too soft here, lacking modeling clues that could assist with the dynamic subject matter. Good news is that it should be rather maleable to work from to create your vision. Almost any of these could be 'transformed' dynamically to achieve whatever POV you want to present.
Without looking at any of them ... just thinking about the experience of being there and all that you saw/felt ... and you could only tell someone ONE THING that they had to see when they went there, what would it be?
1) The area as a whole
2) A single feature
3) The relationship of features
4) Other/etc.
When you answer that question as to the "one thing" (whatever it is) that you would want to make sure that people see / don't overlook ... then I think you'll be on your way to deciding which version best represents that, OR can be best transformed to achieve that "one thing" that you don't want anybody to miss. Then you'll know.
P.S. Lots of candy to play with, but I'm DIW due to a wicked nasty virus that I picked up a couple days ago ... having to rebuild my PS machine and it's not going well.
Bob Jarman wrote:
I prefer #3 and #7...I've taken a liberty and played with #7. If you object I'll pull the post. Did not try anything specific other than explore toolset.
Just so happens I was on Tony Kuyper's site (www.GoodLight.us) reading more about luminosity masks. He has an extensive set of sandstone images which may or may not interest you WRT PP, tutorials, and CS4+ plugins. I find the tools interesting and useful, especially since I hate creating masks.
Regards,
Bob
I don't mind a bit. This is exactly why I posted here to see what other's thought. (You happen to be faster than I am with editing and re-posting.)
Your take is a little more contrasty than what I would do but I will see what I can do with more work at home. Stay tuned . . .
gordon l wrote:
I don't mind a bit. This is exactly why I posted here to see what other's thought. (You happen to be faster than I am with editing and re-posting.)
Your take is a little more contrasty than what I would do but I will see what I can do with more work at home. Stay tuned . . .
Yup, I think the consensus would be I have a dominant contrast gene (only the monitor knows for sure )
Look forward to seeing more - for someone from the east-wing of the US, the landscape is so foreign and beautiful.
Most are good in themselves for different reasons.
1& 5 work well as establishing shots for sequence of tighter crops to follow. If forced to choose one shot out of the entire set to show a stranger that had never been there (like me) I'd pick #1 because it matches initial impression you might have when walking up and looking over the edge in to the Canyon. I also has the strongest implied phallic imagery with the canyon providing the same scale as the body would nude. Looks like the Mohel botched the job on the poor guy in the foreground — or is that Wayne Bobbit? That's the type of "1,000 word" story that come to the mind of the viewer that wide shot in #1 that is missing in the other closer shots of the details and stratigraphy of the columns.
7 -10 say more about how camera POV and distance can change the appearance and impression of objects. By comparison they give the view a good sense of what it would be like to walk round the space as you did, but none of them stand out as well as #1 for me in terms of overall interest and story line, Seeing #1 and using my imagination I can see 7-10 in my minds eye. But it's more difficult / impossible to get a good mental impression of scale and relative position of the wider scene from 7-10.
2,3,4, and 6 show one feature and lack the context of the others. If seen in a series starting with 1,5 they would work better IMHO shot closer / cropped tighter so pull the viewer close to the details and texture of the rock so the viewer can tell whether it is sandstone, limestone, etc. Those close-ups could be inserted between to 7-10 in the series to change the pace visually and as "cut-aways" separating the different points of view seen in 7-10. For example in a series I would follow 7 with a close up shot of flat rock balanced on top, or one of the texture in the edge sharply focused with OFF second column in the background.
You've got a good range of shots to choose from, you just need to decide how best to edit the story. #1 tells it all at a single glance leaving the details to the imagination of the view. If you choose to tell the story in a sequence of different POV you select in a slideshow or multi-frame print layout they viewer gets a better feel for your impression of the space.
First of all, congratulations with finding this cool set of hoodoos. I like the softer light, and do not consider it as "killer". In terms of composition, I prefer #9 as it is the most dynamic of a set.
For pp, you can leave the colors as is - you got some very nice pastel colors, and just bring out more texture. This can be accomplished by switching to Lab space and adjusting shadows and highlights in luminousity channel only.
