p.1 #1 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
This is Inspiration Point at Chiricahua National Monument, AZ.
I hate posting more than one pic of the same composition. However I was planning to shoot this wide (28mm) but then liked what I was seeing wider (16mm) and wider yet (12mm).
I have decided which FL I like best but can never predict what others prefer.
Therefore if you have a preference I would be grateful hear your thoughts on which one.
p.1 #2 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
The second composition. It has just the right balance of exposure and colour. (Your first image has a colour cast and may also need a slight perspective correction of the pinnacles.)
p.1 #3 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
All look nice.
I like the first one most because of the sky being best of the 3, in the other 2 there is a lot of the sky and it isn't strong looking sky. Starburst would make first better.
p.1 #4 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
All comps are nice, the first one is adequate, tho I prefer the second one. However, the best difference between the first and the other two is the better color balance on the second and third.
p.1 #14 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
Dave,
I like them all for different reasons, the best I like is the last one... it's wide and awe-inspiring. This is a fantastic photo that I can't say I've seen any other of this location. It's like the Bryce Canyon of AZ.
p.1 #15 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
Wow! Thanks for all the comments! This really helps - and somewhat confirms why I go back and forth between which FL I prefer. But it boils down to either the 16mm or 12mm, with a slight edge going with the 16mm.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
The second composition. It has just the right balance of exposure and colour. (Your first image has a colour cast and may also need a slight perspective correction of the pinnacles.)
Agree on the 2nd pic and that one was taken with my favorite lens - the Leica 16-18-21 WATE. I love its rendering.
The 28mm is either a 1976 or 1977 Pentax K 28mm f/3.5. Its a good legacy lens but dated. However, the 28mm shot was the only one that I did not use perspective correction - so good point! I also see the color cast. . . thanks!
---------------------------------------------
xterra07 wrote:
All look nice.
I like the first one most because of the sky being best of the 3, in the other 2 there is a lot of the sky and it isn't strong looking sky. Starburst would make first better.
Thanks. I just did not have time to take each focal length with an optimum sun placement. The sky was not strong but not bad. However, the night before had a fantastic sky - but I did not have this strong comp.
---------------------------------------------
Jeffrey wrote:
All comps are nice, the first one is adequate, tho I prefer the second one. However, the best difference between the first and the other two is the better color balance on the second and third.
Yeah - they are not consistent. But then again all 3 had different light and was using different glass. I think once I decide on THE pic I will need to go back and optimize color balance.
---------------------------------------------
Doc4659 wrote:
All three are nice shots but I prefer the second one.
Nice foreground and you don't get lost looking left and right.
Overall a nice balance
And that is why I keep going back to the 2nd pic. Thanks!
---------------------------------------------
The Rat wrote:
Man, that's glorious. I like the second and third best, but then I like wide angle stuff. Well done! I can't wait to get back there someday.
Yes - I use to use to be an ultra-wide junkie and now I'm a hyper-wide junkie!
---------------------------------------------
junglialoh wrote:
wonderful contrast of 3 set images these are amazing well taken images
Thanks - glad you like them and glad I posted all 3.
---------------------------------------------
mwalrod wrote:
I like them all, but probably the 3rd the best.
Thanks. I agree that the 3rd definitely give the bigger picture.
---------------------------------------------
guidostow wrote:
Each has special virtues. I'd be proud to show any of them. Pick the one that matches your vision. Brilliant work as usual Dave!
dgdg wrote:
Wonderful shot.
I like the extra near/far perspective in the widest angle, #3.
David
I also love the way 2:1 and 16:9 images hang on the wall - and the 12mm was a natural for that pano projection.
---------------------------------------------
dallvr wrote:
My vote is for the third one. All excellent images though.
Thanks. I may have to coin toss the winner!
---------------------------------------------
Fred Amico wrote:
Second one seems to have the most balance for me, Dave.
Thanks Fred! For a SOC 3:2 projection this is the FL I like best.
---------------------------------------------
gordon l wrote:
This is a great location I've not seen before. I like the widest last shot personally but all are very good.
Thanks Gordon. Its down near the Mexico/New Mexico border. I believe this would be up your ally as its a 6 mile RT hike from where you can park - but once you reach the end of the trail you really have to hunt for a way to set up so you can see over the edge. The only thing I did not like was the 3 mile hike back in the dark with bear scat on the trail. Let's just say I made this a noisy hike!
---------------------------------------------
Sunny Sra wrote:
Dave,
I like them all for different reasons, the best I like is the last one... it's wide and awe-inspiring. This is a fantastic photo that I can't say I've seen any other of this location. It's like the Bryce Canyon of AZ.
Thanks Sunny. This NM is very unique - and worth the effort of going there!
p.1 #16 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
Very nice shots. #2 and #3 for me. Been there many years ago but I don't remember the background. I do, however, remember the unique rock formations in the foreground.
p.1 #19 · Inspiration Point - wide, wider and even wider. . .
As others have noticed, the first is impacted by color. Some of it may be post processing, but some of it is just timing I believe. The lighting is more dynamic in the second two.
I probably like the second the most, although I'd give the first another chance with maybe more similar color balance.
