Well, it seems that place is all it’s cracked up to be.
Posted by Howard Cihak on February 17, 2013 at 4:30 AM
Monika, the sky is an unnatural ery dark blue. Just guessing, it appears the image was overexposed because the camera meter "read" for the sky and over-exposed everything else. You then appear to have compensated by correcting the entire image with Levels. If you're using Photoshop, I suggest using a selection tool to apply Levels to the sky and the land separately.
Posted by Glenn Randall on February 17, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Hi Monika,
I have a bit different take on the image. The sky is an unnaturally dark blue, but I'll guess it's because you used a polarizer with a wide-angle lens. The band of polarized light in the sky is quite narrow. If you use a wide-angle lens, you include lots of lighter sky as well as the dark polarized band, which looks unnatural. Also, if your meter was reading too much off the bright sky, it would underexpose, not overexpose the shot. The meter will try to render the bright sky (which should be brighter than midtone) as a midtone, That, in turn, makes everything else too dark. Setting aside the technical details, I love the composition and the way the striations in the sandstone lead your eye into the frame and give the image a sense of depth. I also like the way you placed the figure and balanced the placement of the figure against the line of towers in the background. Well done!
Posted by Todd Caudle on February 17, 2013 at 7:33 PM
What sky?
Posted by Stan Rose on February 18, 2013 at 12:40 AM
Glenn is right, on both counts (polarizer and nice comp)--you can often avoid that with a little turn of the CP (another great advantage of live view incidentally).
And congrats for waking Todd from his lurking status!
Posted by Monika Chace on February 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM
Glenn (& Stan), you nailed it. Guilty as charged. The sun was directly behind me, so it was hard to gauge effects of the polarizer.
Todd, you made me laugh out loud!
Posted by Doug Koepsel on February 18, 2013 at 9:12 AM
I like your composition from that area of WP.
Regarding the umeven polarized skies, I have used this method to help some of my images: fix uneven polarized skies
Posted by John Mumaw on February 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Thought I'd check out your gallery seeing as how you have it linked here, but one needs a password to access it?
Posted by Monika Chace on February 18, 2013 at 12:08 PM
John, I'm not sure why it took you there, but I re-entered the link & it seems to work now.
Doug, thanks for the link. I use Nik software for the majority of my editing -- can use the eyedropper color picker without having to make a selection. This seems superior.
I'll have a part 2 coming up here soon.
Posted by Bill Bean on February 18, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Very creative use of natural wonders, Monika. I'd like to look at your site but I'm running into the same issue as John with the password.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 18, 2013 at 2:48 PM
Still get the same thing when I click on the 'www' link below your name,. Just thought you should know is all.
Posted by Monika Chace on February 18, 2013 at 4:02 PM
John & Bill, try it again. I think I got it this time. The site is new (obviously) & still a work in progress. Sorry about the hassle.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Got 'er that time, Monica! It's to your benefit that it works correctly.
Posted by Glenn Randall on February 18, 2013 at 11:04 PM
The sun was actually to your left -- witness the shadow of your body. If the sun had been behind you, the polarizer would have had no effect.
Posted by Monika Chace on February 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM
My bad, Glenn. It would appear that I was just sloppy. Thanks for your explanation in your original reply.
Posted by Monika Chace on February 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Sorry for the tardy repost, but for those who were interested in a B&W, here it is.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 23, 2013 at 12:41 AM
I happened to chance across this and am glad I did. I like this a lot better, Monica!
The shapes, lines and patterns are much more pronounced when the color is removed. Darkening the skies a bit would be an asset, but that's a minor point. Which do you prefer?
Posted by Monika Chace on February 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM
John, I like the B&W better -- the color one looks garish now. I had thought that this would just be a spontaneous one-off, but maybe other little-traveled places would work like the bristlecones outside of Alma or Wheeler Geologic Area?
Discussion
19 repliesI have a bit different take on the image. The sky is an unnaturally dark blue, but I'll guess it's because you used a polarizer with a wide-angle lens. The band of polarized light in the sky is quite narrow. If you use a wide-angle lens, you include lots of lighter sky as well as the dark polarized band, which looks unnatural. Also, if your meter was reading too much off the bright sky, it would underexpose, not overexpose the shot. The meter will try to render the bright sky (which should be brighter than midtone) as a midtone, That, in turn, makes everything else too dark. Setting aside the technical details, I love the composition and the way the striations in the sandstone lead your eye into the frame and give the image a sense of depth. I also like the way you placed the figure and balanced the placement of the figure against the line of towers in the background. Well done!
And congrats for waking Todd from his lurking status!
Todd, you made me laugh out loud!
Regarding the umeven polarized skies, I have used this method to help some of my images:
fix uneven polarized skies
Doug, thanks for the link. I use Nik software for the majority of my editing -- can use the eyedropper color picker without having to make a selection. This seems superior.
I'll have a part 2 coming up here soon.
The shapes, lines and patterns are much more pronounced when the color is removed. Darkening the skies a bit would be an asset, but that's a minor point. Which do you prefer?