boulder field

Much of the drive along I-80 through northern Pennsylvania is a nature lover's delight any time of the year. All too many times, I've mostly looked at the passing scenery while speeding along to a destination. In June, however, we made a few stops. A few other boulder fields pop up during an internet search, but this one in Pennsylvania's Hickory Run State Park gets the most hits by far. According to the pamphlet, it's 400 feet wide, 1800 feet long, and 10 feet deep. Even though that part of the park is fairly flat, it's not easy to walk through the boulders. A tripod serves well as a support for the photographer as well as the camera.

Nikon D3s, ISO 200, f/22, nine-exposure HDR at 1 EV intervals, zoom lens at 14mm

processing highlights

• Topaz Simplify -- saved watercolor preset, 60% opacity
• Alien Skin Snap Art -- saved watercolor wash preset, Color blend mode, 95%, masked from sky but not clouds
• Belle Fleur, Flypaper, and Photomorphis textures -- five in all, various blend modes and opacities, all but one masked
• Curves, Hue/Saturation, and Photo Filter adjustment layers -- I normally don't mention these, but there were nine in all. Primarily, they were used to increase the sense of depth, so all were masked.
• Fractalius -- three black & white layers from saved presets, Multiply, various opacities, one masked
• Snap Art Stylize saved black & white preset -- one layer masked and Multiply, another with an inverted mask and Divide; both with reduced opacity
• Simplify saved black & white edges preset -- one layer masked and Multiply, another with an inverted mask and Divide; both with reduced opacity

I like the composition Dennis, the fg boulder really stands out and you have kept it below the ridge. It must have been a feat just setting up your tripod. It looks like you were dealing with harsh light. I wonder what it might look like if you brought some more detail out in the shadows under the fg rock.

Great composition, Dennis and your processing is great as usual. The only thing that bugs me a little is the dark line on the horizon that separates the rocks from the trees. I'm not sure why because I'm sure that's what it should look like. It just seems a little too stark. Does that make any sense?:S3:

Thanks Jackie and Cheryl. Here's a new version that addresses both of your comments. The shadows definitely needed to be lightened. The three Fractalius layers I normally use all darken the edges, and they increasingly add more gray/black to the already darker areas in the image. I masked out the effect in the foreground shadows on the two stronger layers. I'd darkened the boundary between the boulder field and the distant trees when I applied the Topaz Simplify edges layer. I masked it off partially to retain a more subtle boundary. Thanks for your help.

Dennis, I like it much better!!!! Problem solved:S3:

I like it better too Dennis! You have softened up the line and lightened the shadows:S3:

Dennis: You make a bunch of rocks look inviting! Good job. Great position for taking the photo, with the large boulders in the foreground. I prefer the second version, with a bit more detail in the shadows. Lovely processing, as always. I think the line between the rocks and the trees is just part of the look of this processing. A couple of ideas: what about a slight CCW rotation? Also, what about a bit of an increase in the brightness/contrast of the top third? It is a good image as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anita Bower

. . . what about a slight CCW rotation? Also, what about a bit of an increase in the brightness/contrast of the top third? . . .

---

Thanks for you comments, Anita. The border between the boulder field and the trees does suggest a CCW rotation might be in order. However, the tops of the trees doesn't. When I take macro shots, I'll sometimes purposely rotate the camera for composition. For landscapes and architectural subjects, though, I use a bubble level in the hot shoe of the camera. I think the camera was probably level and there was a crown in the boulder field.

Here's how the image looks if I delete one of the Curves adjustment layers (the one in which I intentionally decreased the contrast above the boulder field) and get rid of the masks that prevented lightening and contrast from affecting the same area in two other Curves layers. It's definitely a more colorful image, and that can be appealing. However, I wanted to give a sense of depth, and lesser amounts of both brightness and contrast come with added depth. Things in the distance tend to be cooler and less saturated, as well, so I did things in the original processing consistent with that. I left those as they were in the version shown here. I'd be interested in your reaction and that of others. (If I were going to keep this version, I'd change some things that accompanied the deletion of the one layer and the masks.)

Dennis: I took all three into my Elements so I could compare them easier. I see what you mean about wanting the further-away areas to be darker. The version I created is somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd images. I think the sky would be bright, even at a distance. Re. the rotation: I am sure your images reflect the actual situation with the horizontal line, but, it looks a tad bit off. I did a slight CCW rotation. Notice that the trees on the left lean to the left, and those on the right , lean to the right. These are minor issues, but I thought you deserved my thoughts.