Moved from Landscapes. Philosophical debate.

This is a view of the North/East end of the canyon. No crop. Cropping of the bottom was considered, but I like this type of view grounded.

Camera Model: NIKON D2Xs
Firmware: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Shutter speed: 1/30 sec
Aperture: 16
Exposure mode: Av
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Multi-segment
ISO: 160
Lens: 12 to 24mm
Focal length: 24mm
Focal length: 36mm (in 35mm film)
Image size: 4288 x 2848
White balance: Auto
Color space: AdobeRGB
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Low
Contrast: Normal
Color profile: ProPhoto RGB

Constructive criticism and any helpful suggestions appreciated.

Rob...............

Hi Rob, Nice view of the canyon. Compositionally I might have added more foreground and a bit less sky. You have even lighting throughout which tells me this was taken when the sun was high. Alot more drama and impact is added when the light is either early or late.
I notice the sky is uneven and could have been done in PP or in the reduction of the file...

Rob,

I like all the different colors within the landscape. I think it is a little too "head on" (i.e. camera base parallel to the ground) perhaps raising the camera up several more feet and pointing it down a bit more may have given it a little more dynamism.

One thing I am unclear about is that there are references to both AdobeRGB 1998 and ProPhoto, which is it? If you opened the file in Adobe1998 and then assign it to ProPhoto, you'll have gamma issues. I think for the web it best to "save as for web" and use the sRGB color space as not all people are using color managed/enabled web browsers.

Hi Chris, Just put PS5 on the machine. This is the first picture that I have tried. I understand that Adobe RGB1998 and ProPhoto are not compatible. When I downloaded this picture I didn't check it before sending to BPN - my mistake. Will not send any more pictures until I can figure it out. NOTE: "Save as for web" was not available. I must have somethings really messed up. I normally use "Save as for web" and sRGB for submissions.

Rob...............

Hey Rob,
Dave covered my thoughts on time of day......but I have to ask even with those thoughts......did you use a polariser? If we use the sunny 16 rule for the time of day....you should be at f/16 and 1/160 sec. No polariser.....this was over exposed. Polariser may do up to 2 stops....not generally at that time of day in Arizona.....you are still about 1/3 to 1 stop over exposed. As a good rule.....if your shadow is straight down or close to it......time to put the camera away and do scouting....almost impossible to capture the grandeur of the location with those conditions.

Hi Roman, I think it is hard to say for certain that any time near mid day is non ideal. I think it is more down to the conditions of the day and time and what one is envisioning their photo to be about. Morning and evening hours just by their very nature have the potential to afford a special quality of light. Sometimes this quality of light I think can become cliche for some subject matter. Sincerely, Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Korman

Hi Roman, I think it is hard to say for certain that any time near mid day is non ideal. I think it is more down to the conditions of the day and time and what one is envisioning their photo to be about. Morning and evening hours just by their very nature have the potential to afford a special quality of light. Sometimes this quality of light I think can become cliche for some subject matter. Sincerely, Chris

---

Hey Chris,
I don't find it hard at all to say mid-day light is not ideal. Are you saying that dramatic skies are cliche? Are you saying that time of day is irrelavant? I did say "given the conditions".....which means since there are no or a few clouds.......if you have a dramatic sky or storm.....all bets are off.....but neither seems to be the case in the above image. You seem to contradict yourself in your statements above, so please clarify and explain how those early or late light moments are cliche. I would love to hear your theory.

Hi Roman,

Contradictions, I'll try to iron out. I am speaking more about peoples conceptions of how they wish to portray a scene. What is one person's ideal may be an others antithesis.

Cliche in the sense that there are certain shots that fit the bill as being beautiful however since on any number of days the same image can be captured again and again, by essentially anyone with not so much different. There of course is a value judgment here that very similar images are of less emotive and photographically interesting.

I think it is indeed something potentially more challenging to get a shot mid day b/c certain graphical elements have to fall into place. The framing of a mid day shot, or what you choose to focus on may also be more critical than shots during hours of the day in which there are rich hues, simply because more emphasis is placed on "what" is being portrayed. i.e. the image's success or failure is contingent upon something like composition alone.

I also think that people can have different "takes" on what they deem as pleasing lighting. I was trying to say that perhaps in the case of this photo the time of day was crucial to expressing the photographer's vision. This vision would be lost if taken at say times during which the sun was lower to the horizon, or if there were elements (such as more clouds) that the photographer did not wish to present in their photograph.

I refer to some of Richard Misrach's work:

http://www.edelmangallery.com/misrach38.htm http://www.edelmangallery.com/misrach4.htm

In some sense, the starkness of the scene is what is being portrayed, not its grandeur.

I myself am not sure where I fall on the issue, I am merely trying to philosophize on landscape photography and am open to views on the matter.

Good points Chris. I am probably more on your side here. I like the very strong light and how it starkly portrays the scene. Having lived in the SW for many years I never shied away from high-contrast scenes - I liked how they looked.

Get me in a NE forest and I would never shoot in strong light as the deep, deep shadows drink the life out of the scene.

Most experienced landscape photographers are aware that early or late light is an element that greatly enhances an images impact and appeal. Yes, I have seen many images shot on cloudy days or with light that wasn't necessarily warm that succeeded due to the subject matter and effect.
Speaking for myself as a moderator I cannot get into the makers head. I can only look at the image and either reinforce the positive and make suggestions for improvement in what I feel are the negatives.
You basically state that lighting or other elements are not important as long as the photographer is expressing their vision. Since you are expressing your vision why ask for critiques?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Mills

Speaking for myself as a moderator I cannot get into the makers head. I can only look at the image and either reinforce the positive and make suggestions for improvement in what I feel are the negatives.

---

Hi Dave,

I agree with your first point.

I'll try to speak to your last point. I think a photographer's vision is something of an individual's pathos, something that identities their work. Expressing one's vision through photography is much like expressing oneself through writing, the two require proper technique/mechanics for their successful execution. If a photographer is unsuccessful in creating an image that communicates a message, or fails to evoke a viewer's emotions then the viewer can indeed critique their work.

Finally, the photographer's vision I think incorporates among other things lighting and different graphical elements, or chooses to exclude certain elements in an attempt to communicate their vision. I was not trying to imply that the two are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps there could be some discussion of what different people prioritize in a landscape scene. Or what elements they like to incorporate. Or whether they have more of a documentary approach and choose to record whatever scene is present. Or perhaps they prefer to come back to a scene at different times.

Chris,agree, we all have our own ways of approaching a landscape. A basic tenant of good landscape photography is lighting and handling the image well technically(by technically I mean proper exposure,etc) These are guidelines(not hard fast rules) that someone who is critiquing needs to look at when assessing an image. I'm open to images that are not necessarily in line with accepted norms but need to work for me.(a bit of subjectivity comes into play) This is a learning site and we critique for a reason.That is to assist folks who are trying to improve on their craft. One needs to know the basics in order to expand their "vision" and grow to their own desired level. Most famous artists knew the basics first and went from there.
As a moderator I feel it's my job to assess if the maker did communicate a message or failed to evoke an emotion or a number of other things. Some of these areas you mentioned can be fuzzy and as I stated I'm not in the makers head and am only looking at an image which will evoke opinions.
Would you carry your opinions into other areas like bird or macro photography or is it only the landscape area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Mills

This is a learning site and we critique for a reason.That is to assist folks who are trying to improve on their craft. One needs to know the basics in order to expand their "vision" and grow to their own desired level. Most famous artists knew the basics first and went from there.
Would you carry your opinions into other areas like bird or macro photography or is it only the landscape area?

---

Dave,

I am not challenging the point of a critique forum. I am discussing the philosophy and approach one takes with landscapes photography. Whether these concepts are generalizable to other photographic areas is a good question. I think each sub specialty of photography have some commonalities.

Chris, The philosophy and approach can be interesting but the bottom line is the image speaks for itself......

The point is early and late light have a much better color that is much more pleasing to most...this is a good example of an image where magnitude and depth would be greatly enhanced by shadows produced by a lower sun. The problems with this image have been well described by the moderators. An image that requires this much debate to justify, probably just doesn't work.

Chris,

We are photographers.....capturing the dramatic light is the top priority......otherwise we are the millions of point and shooters ....who get off the tour bus at luchtime....use the P&S or cellphone.....have lunch.....and go on to the next subject. Technically and philosophically.....they are photographers. Some of those images they took probably hang on their wall with pride.......so by your philosophy.....that was their intent so their vision was realized.. Having gone to art school.....and heard many such philosophies.....while intiguing, are often put in place to hide flaws or to justify something.

This is what I think of philosophical justification: There was an artist who used feces as his art medium. I often wondered if I went out to Yellowstone and took a image of backlit, steaming bison droppings and posted it.....what the responses would be from the philosophers.......I can tell you that my response would be...even in sweet light.......it's still a piece of s***! No philosophy can change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Palmieri

An image that requires this much debate to justify, probably just doesn't work.

---

What about images that nobody talk about? And images on BPN here that people just look and leave no comment? :S3::5

OK, I think I get why this came to General Photography from Landscapes although I think the very same discussion would have been entirely appropriate there. Roman's post 16 made me laugh.

However, this is an opportunity to (again, because I've done it before in Landscapes) bring up the subject of colour saturation in landscape images. Here we have an image of one of the most beautiful places on Earth but it's OVER SATURATED. And yes I have a calibrated monitor. There is no way you would get away with this in other BPN forums (e.g., Avian) but it seems acceptable in Landscapes. I just don't get it. Why make such a beautiful landscape even more colourful than it is naturally?

Regarding the discussion about lighting, my own beginner view in landscape photography is that anything goes. The same cannot be said for wildlife photography where generally noon-day over-head sun kills images. In this case we have a beautifully lit landscape that stands on its own but would look entirely different in different light- different, not necessarily better.

Hi John, yes the image was oversaturated. If you look at the repost(taken in flat light) you can see why the maker kicked it up.(yes, a bit too radically) Oversat is not acceptable in landscapes. Have you ever missed a valid point while critiquing? I will readily admit it I have.
If you feel that anything goes in landscapes(if your referring to lighting) your "beginner" view is showing. You should know that lighting is everything in photography and can make or break an image.
I frankly do not understand why a wildlife image in bright,overhead light is any worse off than a landscape in bright noonday light.
Finally, based on what your stating lighting should not be an issue in critiquing landscapes...



The main issue you had working against you here was harsh light, which creates deep shadows and bright highlights. Best way to avoid this is look out the window and stay inside if it looks too harsh!
Quote: John Chardine

Hi Dave, I appreciate yours comments and I'm sorry I came on a bit strong. Regarding saturation adjustments for landscapes, I find that the LAB colour methods described by Dan Margulis in his fabulous book on LAB colour really work well. It is hard to overdo it and the adjustments on the A and B channels really work to lift and separate the colours rather than just intensify them. I still feel that over-saturation is an issue in landscape photography, and that it needs to be talked about like we are doing here. Ignoring an elephant in a room does no one any good.

I did not mean to suggest that lighting was unimportant in landscape photography, just that each type, whether it be overhead, noon-day, from the side, bright, flat or whatever, produce different effects and it's up to the photographer to use the light to portray the effect they want. In my opinion, the lighting criteria of a good wildlife image are more restrictive. This I think makes landscape more difficult in some respects because you have so many more options and therefore complications.

Hi John, No problem...

Oversaturation is not uncommon in landscape photography. At times I have to make a judgement call on what I think is oversat. Greens generally are a big giveaway but some images are on the margin and those I leave alone. Thanks for the Dan Margulis tip regarding lab colour.
I agree that every strong landscape image does not have to have early or late light. There are many images that lighting conveys a mood, a weather condition or other variables. I certainly appreciate those and evaluate accordingly.
To the untrained eye landscapes appear to be easier than birds since many bird photographers aren't serious landscape photographers. Due to landscapes standing still it's considered easier and many forget all the other variables that go into a strong landscape.
This has been discussed many times on this site and I don't feel I have to defend a landscape's difficulty.One should just talk to those who are serious about the subject.
John, I appreciate your clarification on lighting...