Autumn Valley (C&C Appreciated)

This doesn't qualify for the Fall Colors Contest; it was made a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't get out to the Rockies from the East nearly as often as I'd like. Nonetheless, this is my favorite Fall Color image from my trips there.

Looking Northwest along the Cascade River Valley, just west of Ophir, Colorado.

Perhaps someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong in posting this image. In the original, you can clearly see the aspen trunks at the edge of the forest left of center, yet this posting looks quite soft in comparison.

Howard, it's going to be very difficult to critique an image this small, especially given that you are asking about details for which there are practically no pixels. Can you post a larger version please?

Comp and color look good to me but I agree with Rick that it's difficult to make any recommendations about detail while viewing the image at this size. Remember you can post at a size of up to 720 pixels on the longest side and up to 200 kb in file size. Jim E. mentioned recently those limits will be even increasing to 1200 pix/500kb soon.

This ARTICLE is a big help in explaining a process to get the images to the right size for posting in the forums. Additionally, you can post a link here to a bigger version of the photo if you can upload one to a personal website or online storage account.

I agree, we need a bigger image to make a good critique. Josh, I may be wrong but I thought file size was 300kb and I thought they increased long side to 800 pixels a while back.

Thanks for the correction Jack. It is indeed 800 pix/300kb. I forgot it has been increased since the posting of Darwin's article I linked to above.

So if you guys were in a gallery and came across this image in its native size that you see here, what would you think?

For me, it would make me have to get close and really evaluate it. I think maybe Howard did this on purpose?

Just a thought....

As far as criticism goes, in my opinion, the vibrant colors really set it off - and the clouds/mountain peaks in the upper right 2/3 is a good start in terms of keeping to the principles of photography. You also achieved this with the horizon height. The way it makes me feel is three words: crisp, transitory, and breeze. Just the 3words that came to me first.

For the record, it is 800 pixels on the long side, and just under 300kb. So what am I doing wrong?

O.K., here's another try after trying to follow (in Photoshop) the instructions Joshua Hardin posted for use with PS Elements.

Chris - if he posted that small on purpose, that would be rather peculiar. We're not in a gallery; we're on a web page. And Howard specifically asked for a critique regarding specific details that aren't visible in the image when posted online at this size. So it seemed very likely that it was a mistake....

O.K., the 2nd version is certainly larger, and sharper, but still soft compared to the original.

Solid "peak" color in the stunning curving valley. However I'm confused by nature; where did all the color go in the lower elevation valley, just lower left of dead center? Strange wind event blow all the leaves off low? These wide angle Vista Shots are a matter of personal preference, so my take is that there is a tad too much sky. I would have composed another 25% foreground and 25% less sky. But that’s just me…

Howard - regarding your question about the aspen trunks, they're obviously more visible now in the larger version. There's an apparent loss of detail due to .jpg compression, but as long as the detail is in your original, you're in good shape.

You've got a beautiful, classic Colorado fall scene. The curving valley guides the eye nicely through the scene, with the colors and shadow play providing a nice reward for the effort. I go back and forth on cropping a little sky to better emphasize the valley. I'd be in favor, except I don't like losing the two small clouds on center-left. If it were me, I'd keep it as is.

Regarding the softness, images that have as much detail as this one are difficult to show at their best while staying within the size limits. You still have a little room to work with - you're at 244kb and can go up to 300kb, so you could increase the quality settings when saving the .jpg. But looking at all the fine detail here, I don't know that you'll see a big improvement with the extra 56kb. Simply a limitation of web presentations.

Howard, If you are using CS4 or CS5, you can download an action by alex nail that I find works very well for posting images to the forum. Here is a link with instructions and the actions:

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/tutorials/resize-and-sharpen-for-web/

Thanks, Jack, for the link. I'll give it a try.

Kane, I don't know the reason for the bare aspens along the river bottom. My best guess is that conditions favored those trees going through the color change and leaf drop much sooner than at the higher elevations. As a matter of fact, the 1st snow of the season had occurred a day or so before. Is it possible the temps were much colder along the river bottom? If so, I think that would've accelerated the leaf drop.

Rick, thanks for the encouraging words. Like Kane, I would've liked to have more foreground, but there wasn't any. I was shooting from the side of the road looking down a steep incline towards this scene. As for the sky, the clouds IMO make the scene. It's hard to imagine it being as compelling if the sky had been a clear blue.

Well, I suppose my efforts of trying to share ideas on how to think outside the box has failed yet again. All I can say is best of luck fellas. I'll just watch from the sidelines from here on in.

Chris, FWIW, I found your original comment thought provoking. You offered a rationale that hadn't occurred to me, but it was intriguing. I hope you won't take yourself to the sidelines. As an outside the box thinker myself, I've learned that people like us need to develop a thick hide.

Best wishes.

One more try.

One more try for me too. Howard, to try to maintain some sort of life to this thread, I'll see if I can revive it - to the best of my ability without getting told I'm wrong, again. I'll say it now and I'll say it again - maybe this forum isn't designed for such discussions - hence the numerous other forums out there designed just for that purpose.... Developing a thick hide just shields you from the sensitivity that this medium so requires - you have to be a part of it - it's not a product, guys - it's you.

But I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of my dialogue - the constraints, the implicit unknowns - when you don't have much to go on, how would you interpret an image? Can you get into the mind of the photographer? Would you want to be in the mind of the photographer? My god - look at that scene! Would you want to be there? Isn't that the intent of nature photography? {edited}

So I've decided I'm just being an elitist prick lately with all of this abstract thinking. Because you know why? I am the best - that is, in my own little world. Considering I have a talent, why would I disparage myself? That does absolutely no good whatsoever.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Howard, I expect to hear from you buddy.

Glad to see you back in the game, Chris. Sorry I couldn't respond sooner, but I spent most of the afternoon with one of my employees who's in ICU following an on the job accident.

I'm a pretty simple guy, so I have a simple test for viewing anyone else's work regardless of the size or the setting. I take a quick glance, and if something in that quick glance compels me to take a longer look ... then the image was (as far as I'm concerned) a success. I believe that ought to be goal of any photographic image; to make the viewer take a longer look. This isn't to say everyone else should agree with me; it's just my opinion for my sake.

After that, I may take a harder look to see if there are elements that could be improved to strengthen the image, but I'm probably inclined to be a bit more forgiving of others' work than I am of my own.

Oh goodness, Howard, sorry to hear about your employee. Hope for a speedy recovery.

You know what's so interesting is - photography as a visceral artform, really doesn't require too much inspection, meaning, a cursory glance pretty much does the trick for most of us. I have been doing this lately with nature photography simply because of the consistent subject matter. It REALLY has to be different and even abstract enough to warrant a longer look. But that's about the long and short of looking at photography - now, it's time to dissect the emotional, conflicting, controversial, humbling, etc feeling one gets when looking at that image. That's whats so cool about photography.

The sloping valley sides and the curve are what draw my eye into the image. Maybe this is the part of the comp that allows for more of a cursory glance. Also, not seeing a dominant object to be drawn to, i look at the finer details in the grand view.

This is my final try at getting this as sharp as I think it ought to be.