Just thought I would share these images with you from a recent trip up to Zion Canyon. This year was much better than the last two or three with respect to the autumn colors.

Thanks for looking and I hope you enjoy!

Lovely work Nigel.

nice, a little less saturation though. just too nuclear even for my taste

s

Hi Parsons,

Thanks for your comment.

I understand from your recent posts that you were in Zion around the same time, but when most of these images were captured was during what I like to call the ' Golden Glow Hour ' which occurs just after the sun has disappeared over the far rock formation. You were probably a fair way up the Narrows at the time this happens.

The first three images were captured during this golden glow period, which occurs when the subject goes into shade but the light is being 'bounced' back onto the subject from the cliffs behind which is still in direct light. The light is defused adding to the saturation. I could desaturate it somewhat but then I would have an average image.

I processed these on a Mac with calibrated monitor etc, but on a Windows laptop they do appear less saturated.

Thanks for your feedback Parsons, much appreciated.

Really like the view and your composition in the last image.

Excellent...

bob snow

These things are, of course, a matter of subjective taste... so there is no absolute right or wrong. But if you are interested in my reaction to the colors, having shot for most of October in Utah and for perhaps 5 or 6 days of that in Zion NP, the colors seem a bit overly-intense to me as well. The purple tones in the first one, especially gave me pause. The sky color in the Watchman shot, along with the color of the peak itself, seem to go in a similar direction.

However...

I also have one photograph of my own from Zion canyon that I made in the area around the Temple of Sinawava that ended up looking a bit "nuclear," though I swear that it really must have been that color!

I'm looking at this on my calibrated Mac monitor that I use for my own photography work. I wonder if there might be some color-space issue with the file that is perhaps causing it to look a bit different for us on the web than what you see on your monitor?

You sure were there for some beautiful light and color! Although I hit the peak for high country color, this year I think I missed the wonderful colors that you saw in the canyon by perhaps a week - and I'm jealous! :-)

3 is my favorite, I quite like them. Would you mind telling me when you were there? I would like to hit that next year.

3 & 4 for me, very nice

Nigel, i will elaborate a bit. it was #1 thats the issuse for me. the purple rock and turquise ground vegetation is the issue as i also have photos of that area, durng the glow as you say and certainly did not see that intense colour. again personal interpreation perhaps is at play here. further more i am also on a calibrated screen and also echo dans thughts on colours apce issue.

simon

And I am looking on my calibrated monitor and don't see "nuclear" colors. They may be a little more saturated than reality, but nothing excessive. I usually look with two or three computers and every one is different, even if calibrated. I make a point of trying to never comment when looking at a laptop screen however. Very unreliable for different reasons.

Utah is funny, living here colors sometimes become so amazingly intense, even if only for a few minutes. Without seeing it you may not believe it.

So without being there, it's really the artists recollection and judgement. They are pretty and colorful to me.

As far as the watchman shot I do see traces of the polarizer right at the top in the sky. And yes, a bit of magenta in number one.

I also then looked with IE first, then Firefox, and they were distinctly different. Throw in different graphics cards...

I like all four of them. I like a little extra "pop" in landscape pictures! Seems to bring out the oohs and aahs from people when I show them. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't take much to go overboard. I think you did it about to my taste! I would probably take the magenta out of the first picture though! Ron

ckcarr wrote:
And I am looking on my calibrated monitor and don't see "nuclear" colors. They may be a little more saturated than reality, but nothing excessive. I usually look with two or three computers and every one is different, even if calibrated. I make a point of trying to never comment when looking at a laptop screen however. Very unreliable for different reasons.

Utah is funny, living here colors sometimes become so amazingly intense, even if only for a few minutes. Without seeing it you may not believe it.

So without being there, it's really the artists recollection and judgement. They are pretty and colorful to me.

As far as the watchman shot I do see traces of the polarizer right at the top in the sky. And yes, a bit of magenta in number one.

I also then looked with IE first, then Firefox, and they were distinctly different. Throw in different graphics cards...

Good points. As I also wrote, color is a subjective thing - and how we treat it (and many other things) constitute our personal style. The fact that it looks different on various computers reminds us that a) computer monitors are not necessarily a very reliable way to view photographs and b) various browsers can handle colors in quite different ways. Some are "color managed" and others are not. Best to go with the generic RGB color space for online display, as it is the most generic format and most likely to be the same among browsers. (Color among different computers is still a problem.)

The feedback issue is also a good one to raise, and I think there are at least a couple of points to add in that regard. First, in almost all cases it is important, I think, to acknowledge that we are offering reactions and opinions and not necessarily objective truths. While I can say with certainty that the photographs I see on my monitor seem to me to be over-saturated and a bit different in terms of color balance than what I would have done, I cannot say that this is "wrong." Second, in that light, I know that I'm very interested in how people respond to my work so, as hard as it can be sometimes, I think it is worthwhile to hear and think about how others respond. Sometimes the general response teaches me things about how my work appears to others that I might not otherwise have considered. Sometimes I consider changes on this account... but sometimes I still chose to stick to my guns! :-)

By the way, and in the light of what I wrote in my earlier post, I think that your interpretation works best for me in the second and third photographs where the warmer colors and increased contrast often are important when shooting such subjects in this sort of light.

Take care,

Dan

Hard to pick a favorite but I'm leaning toward the third one. All are very good though.

Really like #3, quite drawn to it.

Hey Nigel,

Cool shots here. You got some nice fall colors there. #4 is my favorite, followed by #3.

Jim

Number 4 is outstanding, Nice work!!

wonderful shots, so many shades

if i had to rank them i guess fav 3 then 1,2,4

Ron-H wrote:
I like all four of them. I like a little extra "pop" in landscape pictures! Seems to bring out the oohs and aahs from people when I show them. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't take much to go overboard. I think you did it about to my taste! I would probably take the magenta out of the first picture though! Ron

It probably doesn't hurt to a trace over do it since in the real world you also had 3D and higher DR and even wider gamut so to make up for that sometimes a touch extra contrast or saturation can make it more realistic in overall feel even if less realistic hah.
Depends, a judgement call.
A couple of them might be starting to push it a touch, but whatever, still look nice.

Mesmerizing.

#4 is stunning!