Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Landscape Arch, Arches National Park, Moab, Utah

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default Landscape Arch, Arches National Park, Moab, Utah

    Canon 7D
    Sigma 10-20mm @ 10mm
    f/7.1 1/80 sec ISO 800

    Curves and sharpening in CS6

    Name:  IMG_0468a.jpg
Views: 78
Size:  202.7 KB

  2. #2
    Wildlife Moderator Steve Kaluski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in the world
    Posts
    20,551
    Threads
    1,285
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Looks impressive Ian, wish there was something I could gauge for scale to appreciate the size of things.

    Lookout for the halo on the underside of the arch RHS.

    TFS
    Steve
    Post Production: It’s ALL about what you do with the tools and not, which brand of tool you use.

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks, Steve. They closed the trail to the arch several years ago after a huge piece broke off, so people can't get underneath. This has its upside (you can get images without people) but also its downside (no people on arch for scale). The arch is about 290 feet long and about 78 feet tall (I think it's considered the largest natural arch).

    http://www.naturalarches.org/archinfo/landscape.htm

    I missed that halo -- I'll go back and get rid of it.

  4. #4
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,812
    Threads
    180
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Speccy stuff Ian, lots in this to hold ones attention and very nice sky as well, it looks little hazy on my monitor, was it misty ?

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks, Phil. Nope, not misty ( I'm not seeing haze here).

  6. #6
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,812
    Threads
    180
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Cassell View Post
    Thanks, Phil. Nope, not misty ( I'm not seeing haze here).
    Could be just monitor variations then, still a magic bit of the world and photo

  7. #7
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    562
    Threads
    51
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    Hi Ian , I am with Phil here on a 'misty' look especially in the centre of the frame . Also a tad soft ,maybe the result of resizing for post here . A technical suggestion here would be maybe F11 and ISO 400 (less noise in the sky)for better overall IQ could have added more DOF . I did a slight repost with some LCE at 15,50,0

    TFS

  8. #8
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks, Andrew. I like the repost. what is "LCE"?

  9. #9
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    562
    Threads
    51
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Ian , soory , its Local Contrast Enhancment , Follow this link to Roberst Tutorial, scroll down and you will find the full description TUTORIAL

  10. #10
    Robert Amoruso
    Guest

    Default

    Ian,

    I like the compositional flow in the image and the fact you only include a part of the arch. Clouds move right, arch flows right, FG rocks and brush flow up. I would have preferred more of the bare branches int he FG assuming that did not introduce other issues as the one inf the middle appears truncated. Agree that the LCE tweak a good one and would have suggested it myself.

    My preference would be NOT to have persons in the image. Last time I was there you could walk up to it.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Ian,

    This is certainly an interesting and different composition. I do like Andrew's repost. I'm not sure I like the arch being cut off, but it does have some interesting awe to it: the viewer is wondering what is that rock on the right going out of the frame, drawing the viewer in and questioning what is there just out of the frame. Congratulations on the different view. I would like to see another image with all of the arch. I have been by this arch many times, but never at sunrise (I've been by it before sunrise going on to other subjects). Nicely done. Next trip I may do this arch for sunrise, as who knows how long it will stay up.

    Also: why ISO 800? I always try and do landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 (except night imaging).

    Roger
    Last edited by Roger Clark; 07-23-2012 at 09:09 AM.

  12. #12
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2,267
    Threads
    560
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks, folks. ISO 800 because I didn't have my tripod with me :)

    I have more with the full arch -- will post when I get a chance. It's a beautiful spot for sunrise, but wish I could have gotten closer.

    I find it interesting how many well known arches and well known geological structures have fallen relatively recently (including this one, skyline arch, and Old Man of the Mountain in the White Mountains of NH). Considering the zillions of years they have been there, I wonder why they are choosing to fall now.

  13. #13
    Roman Kurywczak
    Guest

    Default

    Hey Ian,
    I like this perspective/composition......even if it does cut the arch so nice twist. Some excellent advice given above on tweaks. You had a great sky and nice job capitalizing on it!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics