Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.
Mount Chephren
‹ PreviousLandscape GalleryNext ›

Mount Chephren

by Wayne Simpson

Gallery: LandscapePosted August 25, 2010258 views15 comments
Here is a shot from a couple of years ago. I overlooked this one in favour of another version, but this one has grown on me after some additional dodging and burning. Originally I dismissed this shot due to the fact that the fg tree has no shadow detail, but it really does not bother me now. I would love to hear your thoughts on this one! Thanks for your comments!

5d
17-40 @ 17mm
1.6 sec
f/18
iso 100
polarizer
I believe I used a 3 stop soft grad and 1 stop hard

Comments

15 comments
Comment posted by Matt Anderson on August 25, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Wonderful B/W conversion Wayne! I like your composition as well, although, J Rossbach said I may not be the most qualified to make such a comment ...:wink:
Nice work!
Registered on September 6, 2007, 346 Posts, 2696 Comments
Comment posted by Wayne Simpson on August 25, 2010 at 12:27 PM
Matt,
Thanks for your comment... looks like I might have missed a little drama around here!
Registered on December 11, 2006, 303 Posts, 924 Comments
Comment posted by Tien-Chien Chen on August 25, 2010 at 2:17 PM
I love it Wayne. The B&W treatment is superb and brings out the mood pretty well.
Registered on September 2, 2005, 34 Posts, 225 Comments
Comment posted by Stuart Williams on August 25, 2010 at 3:26 PM
very good wayne. i like this throughout. my only minor concern might be the lack of separation between the tree and the BG trees.
Registered on December 7, 2007, 247 Posts, 4792 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Zane on August 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM
I love the composition of this one. The starkness of the tree is great ... and emphasized by the lack of shadow. I agree with Stuart, that some separation between the lone tree, and the bg trees would have added to the shot! Great mood from this photo!
Registered on June 4, 2010, 3 Posts, 14 Comments
Comment posted by Wayne Simpson on August 25, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Thanks for your comments guys! I see what you are talking about with the merging of fg tree and bg trees. I'm not sure if there is much I can do about the merging with there being so much fine detail on the needles of the tree... bummer.

Wayne
Registered on December 11, 2006, 303 Posts, 924 Comments
Comment posted by Marc Adamus on August 25, 2010 at 4:09 PM
There's things I definitely like about it. The reflections and contrasts are nice. The mountain and clouds do seem to blend together a bit though and the diffused luminosity (glow) off the mountain seems to make the background a tad soft, but I don't mind much. The tree sure adds a lot of depth and I think having it there, detail or not, adds to the scene. I can certainly see enough separation between foreground tree and background to make it work.
Registered on September 17, 2005, 780 Posts, 8091 Comments
Comment posted by Dietrich Gloger on August 25, 2010 at 4:39 PM
I like the feeling and atmosphere of this image a lot. I like the blurred reflection and how this adds some "glow" effect. That tree: I wonder how I would like the scene without it.. :wink: But the fact that it holds no detail is not a problem for me.
Registered on January 26, 2007, 360 Posts, 9876 Comments
Comment posted by Steve Sieren on August 25, 2010 at 5:20 PM
That is one ghostly glow there in the background Wayne, really adds some impact here.
Registered on January 2, 2008, 360 Posts, 5321 Comments
Comment posted by Rudy Ruberti on August 25, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Great b&w image. The tones and comp work well for me. Nicely done.
Registered on October 28, 2008, 179 Posts, 1875 Comments
Comment posted by Chris Chamberlain on August 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM
It's a real nice shot! It took me a few minutes to come around to all the things I like about it. The softer, dreamy look to it is real nice. I don't mind the silhouetted trees at all. I think it's easy to get caught up in the "shadow detail" thing. It's not always necessary. I have gone back and reprocessed a good number of images without the extreme shadow recovery technique that I used to apply. I think it ends up looking more natural. But that was me using the shadow/highlite tool too much!

Chris
Registered on March 13, 2007, 500 Posts, 8365 Comments
Comment posted by Tony Kuyper on August 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM
Tree doesn't bother me. Reflection looks great. Actual mountain feels a bit lacking in contrast, but it's an interesting effect.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 364 Posts, 22328 Comments
Comment posted by John Williams on August 26, 2010 at 1:43 AM
Boy, I really didn't catch all the detail going on from the thumbnail. This has a lot of interest. I love the distant trees.
Registered on September 6, 2007, 221 Posts, 5985 Comments
Comment posted by David Edwards on August 29, 2010 at 5:24 AM
Exceptional image, Wayne. The quality of light is superb and you b/w processing is fabulous. I don't mind the fg tree without detail, it adds a nice contrast to the lighter tones in the rest of the image. I like the glow on the bg mountains. Nice work!
Registered on December 6, 2008, 142 Posts, 2623 Comments
Comment posted by Shaun Mazurek on September 4, 2010 at 12:32 AM
The Fig tree does not bother me. It helps balance the higher key portions of the image. This composition is very nice. The light is superb and the processing is very well done :)
Registered on June 12, 2010, 21 Posts, 162 Comments