I went out to Arches this morning for sunrise and experimented with some new compositions in the Windows area. I like a couple of them but am unsure of this one. Whatcha think?
1Ds MKII, 24-105mm lens
Posted by Jesse Speer on August 26, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I like your creative thinking. I think this particular comp would work better with more cloud activity in the upper left. Or even some pronounced gradation in the sky. Or maybe even just clear open sky. I think the cut off cloud is throwing me off a bit. That's really nitpicking though!
Posted by bill meikle on August 26, 2008 at 9:32 PM
I love the view and the colors Bret, not sure about the incomplete arch on the right though! You did get the exposures right. Darken the sky?
Posted by Bret Edge on August 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Jesse: Yep, you're right. More clouds (maybe some nice pink or orange ones!) would definitely make this stronger. Guess I'll have to keep going back until I get just that. Bummer.
Bret, If it were mine, I'd be happy with it. Would I want some nicer clouds, sure. But until that opportunity came, I'd be pleased with this. The one thing I might suggest is to have taken this just a little earlier. Maybe there would have been some nice pastels with some earth shadow?
Chris
Posted by Todd Caudle on August 26, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I really like this. It's a fresh take on a scene shot by so many. It's almost like Turret Arch is surrounded by the Nike swoosh!
Posted by Paul Wegemann on August 27, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Bret, although I like this, I find my eye just wandering out of the upper left corner. Jesse's suggestions about clouds or gradation are good ones. That would hold one's eye in.
I really like this but I think there has to be a dramatic sky. By using only part of N. Window Arch in your shot, you have changed the subject of the shot from the warm, glowing N. Window (the subject in the standard shot) to the sky behind Turret Arch.
My reasoning/analysis:
Even though N. Window Arch doesn't completely surround Turret Arch, you have still used it to frame an image that contains Turret Arch. When using the frame-in-a-frame technique, the standard compositional guidelines (I'll never call them "rules") still serve to make the image more visually appealing.
As a result, if you apply the rule of thirds to the interior image, the sky takes up 2/3 of the image, therefore the sky is actually the subject of this shot. For that reason you must have a compelling sky.
Don't get me wrong - I really like what you are doing here. You've got an interesting foreground (N. Window) and mid-ground (Turret Arch) but the background, which also happens to be the subject of the shot, needs some oompf (<=technical photography term).
(This, by the way, l is why I don't care for any of the dozens of shots I've taken from that vantage point - I've never been there when there was a compelling sky in the background.)
As an aside, I'll be out your way this Saturday through the following Wed. or Thur. When you have a chance, drop me a line to let me know if you'll have any time to catch up (after the holiday weekend crowds die down).
Hope you're well man!
Posted by Rand Herman on August 27, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Bret, I like the composition, but agree with the others in that you would need a more dramatic sky to balance the image.
Posted by Nick Moore on August 27, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I really like the composition, it definitely paid off to experiment!. The sky does need some oompf as Caz said to make this really stand out, you'll just have to keep going back ;).
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I like this take on the location. Good clouds will make this a winner.
Posted by Laurie Wendt on August 27, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Bret, I like what you did here with the comp. I have to agree with everyone that it could use a little more cloud action to make this really great.
Posted by Bret Edge on August 27, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I got up this morning and peered out the window to see...no clouds. So, I'll be watching the sky every morning I can shoot sunrise and will head out that way as soon as the clouds present themselves. Thanks for the suggestions, all!
I really like this comp Bret. I like the detail of the arch on the right here as compared to typical comps from this spot.
I think it's a pretty cool shot as is personally, but some good clouds would be sweet, and I think the earth shadow idea that Chris had would be a real winner.
Posted by Laurent Baig on August 27, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I'm sure about the incomplete arch. This is fabulous! I agree some nicer clouds in the image would make it, but I think this is pretty close to freaking amazing. If anything, I'd consider a couple of floaters completely in the image would be brilliant.
Posted by John Mumaw on August 27, 2008 at 4:41 PM
I hate to be contrary, but you asked.
It's a nice take on an iconic view, but an iconic view it remains.
I've seen this particular angle of view photographed so much that I'm just about inured to it.
As with Delicate Arch, it would take a mighty thunderstorm, sunrise kissed sky or other anomaly to make me look more than once.
Posted by Pam Colander on August 27, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Sorry Bret but the ULC looks vacant and pulls me right out of the comp. Kudos for trying something different though.
Pam
Posted by Jack Brauer on August 29, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Not much new to add to what's been stated already. I do like the light and the comp; I like how turret feels nestled into the curve of north window. Feels a little unbalanced at first, then less so as I look at it more. I'm of the same mind as Laurent - a more interesting would be ideal, but I don't think the image suffers significantly for lack of any; the light in the sky is subtle, but it does complement the scene, imo. Overall... pretty darn sweet!
Discussion
18 replies1Ds MKII, 24-105mm lens
Bill: Thanks for your thoughts!
Chris
I really like this but I think there has to be a dramatic sky. By using only part of N. Window Arch in your shot, you have changed the subject of the shot from the warm, glowing N. Window (the subject in the standard shot) to the sky behind Turret Arch.
My reasoning/analysis:
Even though N. Window Arch doesn't completely surround Turret Arch, you have still used it to frame an image that contains Turret Arch. When using the frame-in-a-frame technique, the standard compositional guidelines (I'll never call them "rules") still serve to make the image more visually appealing.
As a result, if you apply the rule of thirds to the interior image, the sky takes up 2/3 of the image, therefore the sky is actually the subject of this shot. For that reason you must have a compelling sky.
Don't get me wrong - I really like what you are doing here. You've got an interesting foreground (N. Window) and mid-ground (Turret Arch) but the background, which also happens to be the subject of the shot, needs some oompf (<=technical photography term).
(This, by the way, l is why I don't care for any of the dozens of shots I've taken from that vantage point - I've never been there when there was a compelling sky in the background.)
As an aside, I'll be out your way this Saturday through the following Wed. or Thur. When you have a chance, drop me a line to let me know if you'll have any time to catch up (after the holiday weekend crowds die down).
Hope you're well man!
I think it's a pretty cool shot as is personally, but some good clouds would be sweet, and I think the earth shadow idea that Chris had would be a real winner.
It's a nice take on an iconic view, but an iconic view it remains.
I've seen this particular angle of view photographed so much that I'm just about inured to it.
As with Delicate Arch, it would take a mighty thunderstorm, sunrise kissed sky or other anomaly to make me look more than once.
Pam