I met Mark Hespenhiede in Canyonlands last week for a few days of monsoonal moisture and talked him into making his 7 trip to Delicate Arch. The conditions were ripe for a nice shooting and since I had never been there it was time to check it out. Needless to say we rubbed elbows with about 100 people but in the end, the conditions made everything worth the trip. I remember just in complete awe of what I was seeing that night. It truely looked like a beautiful painting.
Comments and Critique welcome.
Posted by Jack Garrett on July 28, 2012 at 5:21 PM
Nice shot Kane. I like the angle you shot of the arch, and captured the beautiful light on it as well. My nit would be the spot of sky to the left of the arch looks a bit too blue/saturated IMO. Dial that back a pinch and print it.
Great take, Kane... I really like the comp. Definitely unique, especially for this location! I did notice one thing... The top half of the image has a ton more contrast than the bottom half. Either that's some interesting lighting going on, the result of two images blended, or my imagination (seeing I wasn't there). Thought it was worth mentioning, although I will honestly say I thoroughly enjoyed this image. TFS!
Nathan, nice observation. The gap lighting that night was optimal. I did add a touch of highlight curves to just the sky but there was so much existing luminance that it would be very easy to blow out certain textures in the sky. No added highlights to the arch.
John, I noticed that red channel getting up there. Thanks for the heads up.
Josh, Im gonna hold tight with the saturated blues. Feels right to me.
Heres another one taken maybe 10 minutes after the first post shot.
Posted by Guy Schmickle on July 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Not much I can add to the critiques already made, but overall this is a very sweet and somewhat different vantage point of the arch. Love the kiss of light on its upper half and that killer, killer sky!!
Well, it is the prettiest shot I've seen from there. And, I agree with Nathan about an obvious "break" in contrast from the bottom to the top, and it's even more noticeable in the second shot as well. But that's a minor tweak for you.
Eye catching rock candy! Love the clouds and the spotlight on the arch. I would suggest darkening the foreground rock, quite a bit, for a more dramatic effect (similar to the darkness on the bottom third of the arch. Because of that darker lower third of the arch it gives the impression of a 3 stop,hard graduated ND filter that allowed for the lighter foreground and as a result does not appear natural to me. The main eye catching elements are the arch and the clouds/sky. I think the brighter foreground tries to compete for the eye without giving much back in satisfaction.
Posted by Jimmy Gekas on July 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Warning! This is a great shot of DA
Posted by Bob Falcone on July 29, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Damn nice photo of a oft-photographed icon! Well done!
Posted by Jack Brauer on July 30, 2012 at 12:51 PM
I must admit, it's a good photo!
Posted by Jeff Hackett on July 30, 2012 at 4:06 PM
I prefer the first one. You received some wonderful light and took full advantage.
You've got a great start here, but it needs some work (if you don't mind my being blunt). I'm confident that you've got the raw take to get it, though, remembering the light that we had.
There's three basic issues. The first and most important is that there are two (or three) segments in the picture, and they don't play against each other well. The portion towards the top of the frame, the lit landscape and the sky, has noticeably more contrast and saturation than the bottom of the frame -- as you and Nathan talked about already.
The second is that the bottom third of the arch -- in shadow -- is darker than the foreground. If anything, it should be the opposite.
The third is that there's a black edge to the top of the arch -- sort of the opposite of haloing. As we talked about, it's probably a lot less visible at print size, but here on the web it's visible.
Fundamentally I think you need to go back and work on the blending of the images before you stitch them. Personally I'd back off the contrast and saturation in the top of the frame a touch, and then add some more in the bottom of the frame, to make them work more in concert. Then work on getting a smoother blend between the two. I have some ideas for helping with that, if you like.
Sorry to be harsh. I think you've got a portfolio image here, and a unique take on what can be a cliche. I like it a lot more than my traditional shot from the same evening...
Great to meet up with you out there. Thanks for the company, and I hope we can meet up in Zion this fall.
Posted by Art Escobado on July 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM
it's a very nice composition! the processing can be improved as mentioned but really you got the most important element right and it's a great take on a much shot area. Awesome shot!
Thanks for sharing a different take on the most photographed arch on earth. It's an awesome comp and the light/clouds really put it over the top - I think any photographer would be stoked to have this image in their portfolio.
Mark, you know damn well I want that critique so bring it on brother. Let's see what I can do. I think this one deserves more processing love than most shots of mine so ill spend another night reworking it. Compression seems to bring out my processing sins in this image. I notice the contrast difference on my iPhone, but not so much on my moniter.
Because its a three image 24mm stitch I basically got lazy with the final processing after overcoming some technical problems with the stitch. While shooting that night I started shooting panos across the bowl with you at 70mm. Then that crazy rainbow showed up and I moved closer to shoot my 24mm. However.... I forgot to adjust the the nodal setting on my pano head from 70mm, to 24mm. I ended up with tough parallax stitching issues. Of course something had to go wrong right? At any rate, I am still not set on which series of shots from that night are the best. I'll get into it tonight.
Discussion
19 repliesI met Mark Hespenhiede in Canyonlands last week for a few days of monsoonal moisture and talked him into making his 7 trip to Delicate Arch. The conditions were ripe for a nice shooting and since I had never been there it was time to check it out. Needless to say we rubbed elbows with about 100 people but in the end, the conditions made everything worth the trip. I remember just in complete awe of what I was seeing that night. It truely looked like a beautiful painting.
Comments and Critique welcome.
The red channel looks clipped in parts of the face of the arch.
John, I noticed that red channel getting up there. Thanks for the heads up.
Josh, Im gonna hold tight with the saturated blues. Feels right to me.
You've got a great start here, but it needs some work (if you don't mind my being blunt). I'm confident that you've got the raw take to get it, though, remembering the light that we had.
There's three basic issues. The first and most important is that there are two (or three) segments in the picture, and they don't play against each other well. The portion towards the top of the frame, the lit landscape and the sky, has noticeably more contrast and saturation than the bottom of the frame -- as you and Nathan talked about already.
The second is that the bottom third of the arch -- in shadow -- is darker than the foreground. If anything, it should be the opposite.
The third is that there's a black edge to the top of the arch -- sort of the opposite of haloing. As we talked about, it's probably a lot less visible at print size, but here on the web it's visible.
Fundamentally I think you need to go back and work on the blending of the images before you stitch them. Personally I'd back off the contrast and saturation in the top of the frame a touch, and then add some more in the bottom of the frame, to make them work more in concert. Then work on getting a smoother blend between the two. I have some ideas for helping with that, if you like.
Sorry to be harsh. I think you've got a portfolio image here, and a unique take on what can be a cliche. I like it a lot more than my traditional shot from the same evening...
Great to meet up with you out there. Thanks for the company, and I hope we can meet up in Zion this fall.
Because its a three image 24mm stitch I basically got lazy with the final processing after overcoming some technical problems with the stitch. While shooting that night I started shooting panos across the bowl with you at 70mm. Then that crazy rainbow showed up and I moved closer to shoot my 24mm. However.... I forgot to adjust the the nodal setting on my pano head from 70mm, to 24mm. I ended up with tough parallax stitching issues. Of course something had to go wrong right? At any rate, I am still not set on which series of shots from that night are the best. I'll get into it tonight.