Zion Watchman

Here are a couple of images from Zion. Like every photographer who visits the place I went to the photograph the Watchman from the bridge.

Then to add a little difference to the classic view I went and did it at night.

I'll reply with a late afternoon post on a heavy overcast day.

Night view on a 50D with a Sigma 10-20 at 10mm.

And here is an HDR on an overcast day from the river.

Have you ever seen a purple sky or purple clouds like that in real life? This makes Velvia look like Tri-X! More photo-art than photo. There's a good photo here, but this version needs help. (If you were going for photo-art, please disregard EVERYTHING I just said.) And in your first pic, with shots like this I think you either need no movement or a lot of movement. This exposure makes the whole image look like it's moving (I had to look closely to see that it was just the sky blurred, and not the whole image, as is the effect of this shutter speed), and is kind of headache-inducing. I'm not trying to come off harsh, I'm just critiquing honestly.

I would have preferred the stars to either be static or longer trails with #1, while the clouds and water reflections have a decided purple color cast from the processing in #2.

*EDIT*
I was typing this as Todd posted, so although my views appear similar, they're actually independant observations.

I agree 100% with Todd and John here, I would prefer the stars either static, or with more trails through the image, it does kind of make you dizzy looking at #1. #2 is a nice composition, but unless you're going for photo Art as Todd mentioned, those colours are just Funky .

Ouch.

I guess you guys never visited that one gallery in Springdale. This is tame in comparison to the colors there.

Ok, I pushed the HDR on the second one, but I did like the effect.

The first one comes down to using the 50D. It does not like long exposures as the sensor heats up and you get bad banding. So I went long enough to pick up some glow in the river but not to get banding in the sky.

And here is the more normal colors.....

I tend to agree with the comments. The more normal colors version is better but it still look a bit purple to me. But your web site has lots of great photos with no color cast, so that seems to be a one time thing. Fatali does do some funky things with the colors in his shots that could sometimes be described as photo art. But he tends to keep the skies believable looking, except, of course, for the moons he pastes into half his images. The manipulation is well done, though, and the only thing that really bugs me about his iamges is that he claims not to digitally alter them at all.

For the stars, you might also try to time it so that the moon illuminates more of the scene...or just photograph at a place that is being illuminated by the moon at the time.

I think you are going in the right direction with the repost, it still appears a little off for color. But, it is your artistic statement, so you really only have to please yourself. For the star shot, I don't know what the highest iso for the 50d is, but you might try the highest iso with a wide open wide angle lens, and a shorter shutter speed. Check out Stan Rose's shot from the sand dunes posted on 5/29.

You said it was HDR, however, especially in the first one the top part of the photo is a little darker than the bottom...almost as if you have a GND filter on. The tree on the right seems extra dark to me in both maybe giving me the illusion of too much GND on the top. But, besides being shocked by the purplish cast of the photo, which is entirely a matter of taste...it's a great composition! I have a photo I love of the Badlands and the moon at sunrise that I put a red enhancing filter on...a little unnatural, but I like it. Another example of photography as almost surreal is Peter Lik, it's so oversaturated and printed on special crystal paper that it makes the print seem like it's on a huge light table. It's almost garish if you think about it too much...but you can't stop looking at it, and he's not taking any photo subjects that are any different than what's on this site...

So I went long enough to pick up some glow in the river but not to get banding in the sky.

Bottom line, if the end result is not pleasing to the eye, or worse, makes people feel dizzy when they look at it, what's the point? There's a technique wherein you take several short exposures and then stack them in Photoshop to equal one long exposure, thus avoiding noise and banding issues. I haven't had much success with this technique, but it's still new to me. I've seen examples done by others that look great.

As for the repost, the sky is still purple. You are going in the right direction, though. (Right direction for me might not be for you, it's your call, and you can tell me to jump off a bridge if you like.) Use your eyedropper tool in PS on a couple of spots and see what the color swatch reads.

Well, Todd's on a roll here so i'll stand back and let him be my voice
I do think the repost is getting pretty close, just a tad more purple-be-gone and you're there for my tastes. I really sympathize with the camera limitations in your top post, yeah its not the prettiest shot but i admire the creativity, and i think there is a 'point' to that.

The only thing I would add here is I have a 50d and havent had problems with long exposures. I turn off long exposure noise reduction and that seems to do the trick.

Well, I appreciate the comments. I know one thing about NPN is folks are passionate about photography. I'll try to tweak the sky to get more of the purple out.

The star trails might be different as I do not think I have a long enough one or a short enough one and since this one aint just right there does not appear to be a Goldilocks solution for this one. I may just have to shelve that one until I make my next trip to Zion.

Darren, I ahve nothing new to add, but to provide a second person saying what Jack said about the 50D. I also have it and have not had issues with long exposures. I also have my long exposure noise control in the off position.