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

Consummation + Repost

by Shane McDermott

Gallery: LandscapePosted July 29, 2013344 views11 comments
Greetings

So many of you may have seen the first image of the confluence I posted last week, which is the exact same composition as this one. However that first one didn't seem to grab much attention due to the lack of light in the canyon itself. So I would be interested to hear if this image holds more appeal and drama with direct light into the canyon, even though sky color is lacking?

Which do you prefer?

All comments are appreciated.

D800, 5.6, 1/400, ev0, ISO100, 16mm

Thanks,

Comments

11 comments
Comment posted by John Mumaw on July 29, 2013 at 7:25 PM
This one works for me a bit better than your previous version. I especially like the receding canyon walls on the left. However, I find the overall light to be a bit too harsh. Don't get me worng...both compositions are effective in showing this confluence, but in a 'documentary' style rather than a more pleasing image.
And you posted such a remarkable and compelling image from the region here, that you set the bar pretty high!



Registered on September 9, 2005, 62 Posts, 2289 Comments
Comment posted by Brian Schrayer on July 29, 2013 at 8:03 PM
I like the contrast between the converging rivers. I also think I like the wider view of the canyon in this image. I see that you shot this at f5.6 presumably to mitigate diffraction. Is this a focus blend or just a single exposure?
Registered on May 28, 2004, 114 Posts, 2890 Comments
Comment posted by Shane McDermott on July 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Thanks again for your feedback John. I agree the last image I posted from the confluence is going to be tough to top. I would really like a dramatic composition from this point that includes a substantial length of both rivers. A great reason to go back!
Registered on November 12, 2007, 49 Posts, 1074 Comments
Comment posted by Shane McDermott on July 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Hi Brian

It is a single exposure. I choose 5.6 because I didn't need any more DOF, and 5.6 is a very sharp aperture for this lens. Hope that answers your Q.
Registered on November 12, 2007, 49 Posts, 1074 Comments
Comment posted by Shane McDermott on July 29, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Hi John

I decided to take your advice and reduce the overall brightness. I decreased the exposure on the RAW by 2/3 of a stop, and still none of the shadows blocked up. I like it much better! Does this seem to work any better?

Thanks for the suggestion!
Registered on November 12, 2007, 49 Posts, 1074 Comments
Comment posted by Jared Warren on July 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Shane, I agree with John's comments, but I slightly prefer the previous version because of the sky drama. And as John mentioned, it's hard to top the earlier "Deep Foreboding" image. Not sure if it's just my eyes but is there a slight curvature to this horizon? Very subtle, and maybe just an illusion. At any rate, these are great images. :toast:
Registered on May 11, 2012, 84 Posts, 931 Comments
Comment posted by Kane Engelbert on July 29, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Yes, I like this version better but my eye still wants some of the elements of earlier versions; like the eye catching deep canyon confluence. It seems darker here in your latest version, and I think it needs some attention (light) because the meeting of two different rivers is incredibly interesting. I would take the foreground of your first image of this post and blend it with the sky and canyon portion of the second post.

Also, shooting Grand Scenics at 14mm is challenging right? Have a look at the easily correctable distortion. Just want to see that horizon level out.
Registered on June 14, 2009, 63 Posts, 291 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Pelton on July 29, 2013 at 10:06 PM
This shows off the canyon interior much better IMO, and has more impact, although the sky was very nice in the last one. But the total package is better here IMO.
Registered on November 25, 2003, 380 Posts, 4647 Comments
Comment posted by Brian Schrayer on July 29, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Thanks, Shane. I appreciate the reply!! :wavey:
Registered on May 28, 2004, 114 Posts, 2890 Comments
Comment posted by Shane McDermott on July 30, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Hi Kane

That is a great point regarding the confluence of the two rivers - I agree completely. I think by bringing more light to that area I can pull the best of the two posts together.

Thanks for your input.

Registered on November 12, 2007, 49 Posts, 1074 Comments
Comment posted by Matt Anderson on August 1, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Beautiful perspective!
Registered on September 6, 2007, 346 Posts, 2696 Comments