critique this image

[jetcode]

I know what I think about this image. What do you think about this image?
Where does it work? Where does it fail?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/2698582645_b195e1dcd0_o.jpg

[Kevin Crisp]

I must say it bears a striking resemblence to my screen saver.

[jetcode]

does the image work? why or why not?

[BarryS]

My eye enters at the bottom of the light lava formations and follows them up to the black peak, but then stalls out amidst the jumbled dark peaks of the background. It seems like the real subject is the formation in the foreground, but it's not set off well against the dark peaks and should figure more prominently in the image. The blocked shadows in the dark peaks don't help either because my eye is looking for something to move to after it travels up the formation.

[Jay Wolfe]

A lot of images made there by a lot of photographers. Unless you can do something unique, why bother?

Comments:
>Too far away.
>Would be better with a looming foreground.
>Sky adds nothing.
>Only need a narrow strip of dark distant mountains; tops of those mountains are not interesting.
>>Keep at it and bring us another one.

[jetcode]

in terms of your first question Jay I was a total novice (1996) when I took that image

my take is that it's a breath taking view in person but not necessarily a great composition, graphically it's weak in the top half and the overall geometry doesn't work for me either

there may be an image in here yet ... we shall see ... if possible don't surprise me with your rendition ... last time that happened I went with it!

[domenico Foschi]

Joe,
although this kind of photography is not my daily bread I will take a ...stab :o at it.

Staring from the foreground, the lighting interferes with the shapes of the formation, I would have waited until the sun would have set to get a softer feel.
This would have acted as well on the formation on the background which is too contrasty revealing almost nothing in the shadow areas.
As a poster wrote I would eliminate the sky.
I would add that the light rock on the right bothers me, the tones are too light , so I would balance it with the light rock which is at the left.
I would actually compose the image on a vertical frame and crop it almost square and darken the foreground in order to balance it with the background and "contain" the image better..
I would also darken all the other sides of the image as well.
Here's the image I would be more prone to make.

http://i30.tinypic.com/11r3thu.jpg

Ehmm, I am sorry....

http://i38.tinypic.com/4uyigw.jpg

[Ash]

There's nothing really horizontal or vertical in the shot, it's all wavey lines.

If you like wavey lines, cool, but I have nothing to relate with. But I like the tonal range, and the subject matter might work with a different composition - probably a wider lens for more sense of distance.

[Vaughn]

My eye slips across the image and off of the right side -- compositionally, it does not capture my eye and hold it within it. If it was on a wall, my eye would slide right by it and onwards to the next print -- leaving no lasting impression of the image. By definition (my own), this means the image does not "work".

It appears the image is more about the wonderful forms created by the light on the landscape -- not about the Place. If so, then the skyline, as presented, only distracts rather than adds to the image.

If you have not done so, I would suggest physically entering the space, experiencing it and making it part of your consciencousness...wander around down there for a few hours, take a few detail images then return to this vantage point and remake this image...if you still feel at this point there is a need to.

[Bill_1856]

It's YOUR photograph.
Do not confuse the photograph with the memory.
If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. If you're not happy with it, throw in in the trash and move on.

[Darren H]

My $0.02

I really want to like it but it does seem to be missing something or maybe needing something more to make it "pop". So I'l call it nice but not wow.

I like the basics of the composition with the wavy lines, and the shapes of the mountains at the top.

I am not sure if the light was right. Not quite low enough. Would the other end of the day offer better light coming in from the right to open up some of the darker middle areas? I don't know if it would but I'd like to try.

I might like the image made closer to the lines too. Go wider, lower and closer. I think that would help really bring out the features there.

Thanks for sharing.

[jetcode]

every image is a study ... there is spice in examining something that does or doesn't work ...

[Don Boyd]

Joe, thanks for asking. Like others my eye slips around, trying to decide to focus on the contast between the shadows in the eroded lighter foreground, or on the smaller contrast differences in the top half. I'm thinking that these are two compositions combined. I really enjoy it when I stay on the graphics of the bottom three-fifths. There is plenty of detail in the shadows to give it a three-dimensional quality, and my eye wants to explore the successive waves of light and dark. Very luminous.

[Donald Miller]

Joe, As Bill and others have said, it is your photograph. I am not much into photographs of places...but I do like photography about aspects of places...photography of aspects of form as opposed to photography of "known subjects".

My idea of this photograph is depicted in the crop that I have attached.

[Charles Carstensen]

It seems too complicated with lines going every direction. Actually, there is no focus/subject.

[jetcode]

It seems too complicated with lines going every direction. Actually, there is no focus/subject.

bulls-eye

[RJ-]

critique this image
I know what I think about this image. What do you think about this image?
Where does it work? Where does it fail?


Hi Joe,

Forgive me if I wonder whether 'critique' divorced from 'appraisal' confers a different approach towards a viewer's entry into image.

The foremost aspect which strikes me relates to the strange land form and its extensity. When I grasp this feature, then it seems a little disorientating to find the intensity of the landscape absent. In such instances, liner notes are a fascinating cue - for instance, indicating that this was an early work. There are signposts of potential within the image - perhaps I thought to mock-up using my abysmal photoshop skills to try and convey how the compositional interrelations seem present, perhaps not yet distilled within the image. The landscape genre is not perhaps the easiest to grasp; convention states that an image must have a subject matter (primary focus), however deconstructionist' approaches removes such facile thinking. In many respects, it is the unformed art; that abstraction of the formed landscape which strikes me as being bereft in the initial image. I wondered, as Donald has, whether various compositional devices (version I/II) might reinterpret the overwhelming sense of vista conveyed before the photographer at the time of the photograph ; the risk of photographing always runs into a risk of being sentimental over praxis, rather than image. Then again, I wondered if a toned effect, perhaps sepia toning, to inculcate a sense of earth-like colour into the formed soil textures might be brought to the fore, bringing more life to the death valley(version IV). Or thinking about the American tradition, whether SCIM/masking (crudely replicated here) might replicate the image in the tradition which American photography is famous for (version II).

Most of all, perhaps I thought to stop by and express the pleasure at noticing how self-reflexive practice on one's work, is essential to keep one's own photographic practice alive. I hope you find it is rewarding too.

Kind regards,

RJ

[Bruce Watson]

It seems too complicated with lines going every direction. Actually, there is no focus/subject.

And yet, that's one of the things I like about it. I like that the eye doesn't have something to immediately latch hold of. I like that it takes some effort and some thought to really look at it and see what's there.

I also like the dark mountains in the background -- gives the lighter foreground some context. Similarly, the sky gives the dark mountain background some context and some boundaries. Finally, I like the high contrast lighting which does an excellent job of highlighting the texture and the visual rhythm of the foreground in particular.

I guess what I'm saying is the natural tendency for most of us would be to pull down on the lighter foreground and cut the background and the sky out of the frame. Since that's what most of us would do, it bears considering doing something different. And in this case I think that something different works pretty well.

[jetcode]

Here's another version.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2699114467_01ff605c85.jpg

[Ken Lee]

Your second version has a definite subject, more pleasing tones, and a better sense of scale and atmosphere.

If we had never seen desert scenery, it would be a marvel. But having seen so many photos, we need an additional element - in the same way that a wedding cake needs a bride and groom on the top, or some buildings need a flag waving in the wind.

In this classic Ansel Adams image, the solitary horse, lit by a shaft of sunlight, adds that magical element. Without it, the photo is merely... competent. With the horse, it's... majestic.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/lonepine.jpg

[sanking]

Your second version is better to my eye because it abstracts the scene.

Here is what I would have done.

1. Compose for a more panoramic view.
2. Lighten up a bit the dark mountains.
3. Accentuate the highlight areas at the top by dodging just a bit.

Or perhaps the second version.

Sandy

[jetcode]

Sandy the only problem I have is with these interpretations is that the top of the foreground ridge can't be easily identified as separate from the background


Ken while the image value has increased with my second interpretation in general the image and composition remain weak. I would consider using the image for a portfolio on death valley if I had no better choice.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think all photographs must have a "subject" or a center of interest in order to work. Textures, shapes, light, interplay of light and colors or tones can be compelling by themselves. I also don't think there's anything inherently "wrong" with a photograph in which your eye wanders around from one part to another, assuming there's something worth wandering around in.

With your photograph the forms and textures are very interesting as is the progression of light from foreground to background and I enjoy just looking at all the peaks, valleys, and shapes within the photograph. The sky doesn't bother me particularly, it's not a totally bald sky and it does help set off the mountain crest. I don't think any of the versions others have shown with the sky cropped work well at all.

My only mild criticism is the complete lack of texture or detail in some of the dark areas near the top, though viewing a photograph on a monitor is a terrible way to make technical judgments and perhaps these areas aren't really solid black in the print. Overall I think it's a very nice photograph and I suspect that if you showed it to people other than a bunch of hyper-critical photographers they'd think so too. : - )

[Jim Galli]

I live in this desert. It's too harsh. I finally learned not to get the camera out when the light is like that. In 4% relative humidity in an environment where the ground has a lot of natural reflection the difference between your sunlit areas and shadow areas is just brutal. Like 4 stops brutal. So you have no mid tones. Zone 2 1/2 and zone 6 1/2 are all you've got to work with. Nobody needs that tension on the wall staring at them. I think I'm all done photographing in Death Valley. You could accuse me of not being able to see the forest because of the trees. Now Marta Beckett I'd photograph.

[jetcode]

I live in this desert. It's too harsh. I finally learned not to get the camera out when the light is like that. In 4% relative humidity in an environment where the ground has a lot of natural reflection the difference between your sunlit areas and shadow areas is just brutal. Like 4 stops brutal. So you have no mid tones. Zone 2 1/2 and zone 6 1/2 are all you've got to work with. Nobody needs that tension on the wall staring at them. I think I'm all done photographing in Death Valley. You could accuse me of not being able to see the forest because of the trees. Now Marta Beckett I'd photograph.

the image was captured at first light and I purposely increased the contrast but like you said once that sun is off the horizon the day is shot.

[Cliff McMann]

I know what I think about this image. What do you think about this image?
Where does it work? Where does it fail?



Joe,
Now we know what everyone else thinks about this image, but we don't know what you thought when you took/printed it or what you think about it now, years later. I'd be interested to hear how well this picture captured what ever it was in the image that originally caught your attention, and how your interpretation of it's success or failure have changed in the intervening years.

I just recently started to shoot again after a several year long break. When I pulled out my gear to to clean off the dust I found several old mounted prints from when I was in school. Prints that I hadn't looked at in years. I found that some which I remember liking at the time had less appeal to me now. I don't know for sure if this is a change in my tastes as I grew older, or the abillity to look at these prints with a more critical eye now that I'm removed by time from the actual creation process.

[jetcode]

Cliff,

I took this image in 1997 after being engaged in photography about a year or so. At the time all I could see was this vast beauty before me. Zimbriskie Point is gorgeous.

In terms of spending the time to compose I was simply interested in capturing an image with what I knew then about composition. I was on a 1 week Death Valley group photography trip and came back with some interesting images but no where near what I can produce today with the way I see or the knowledge I have about getting a quality piece of film to print from. A lot of my negs are extremely flat due to a lack of knowledge. I may go back sometime in the near future but the Valley has been photographed endlessly and I am more interested in a personal view on fresh subject matter.

[Cliff McMann]

Joe,

Thanks for taking the time to answer. If nothing else it should feel good to look at those older images and be able to guage some progress. If you do go back,and I would encourage you to do so, try to apply a personal vision to the same subject matter. There seems to be a lot of negative noise on this and many other sites about photographing "beat" locations. But in my opinion there is a reason people were drawn to these subjects to begin with, and if you're there then it seems a shame to let concern that some one else may have done it better or before stop you from trying to create something of your own. If everyone else waits for the morning light, then try and solve the "problem" of the sun being higher in the sky. Who knows the image may be a spectacular failure, or just maybe a spectacular success. 25 years or so ago I was apprenticed to a local portrait photographer, he allways used to say that the secret to taking great pictures all the time was to throw away the bad ones before anyone saw them.

Cliff

[john borrelli]

Joe, I agree with a lot that has been said. I agree with some that the second image is stronger than the first.

I also strongly agree with Domenico and Ken Lee's points. There are some great ideas in this thread but I'll give you a goofy one that people can try at home.

Take two post-its and stick them on your computer screen. With one post-it cover the left side of your image, but at an angle so that you cover more of the top left but none of the bottom of the image. With the second post-it cover the bottom right hand corner but angled so that you cover none of the top of the image.

Now, pick up your computer monitor(only for people using a laptop!) and tilt the monitor counter-clockwise until the top of the central mountain peak is as level as you can get it (as is, the top right is a little lower than the top left). To my eyes, I like this variation a lot. (Of course, Photoshop is great for this kind of thing.)

For me thinking about the process described above, reminded me of an old View Camera magazine article where they analyzed some popular Ansel Adams images of sand dunes{May/June 2003, A morning in the dunes with Ansel Adams}. Ansel managed to find many compositions of the same sand dunes in part by putting his camera off level to the scene. Maybe, if you go back there, you could give this a try.

In closing, I think your second image is strong as is,and also, that it reminds me a little less of Ansel Adams and a little more of Eliot Porter, maybe something about your composition.

Thanks for sharing the image.

[Brian_A]

1. Compose for a more panoramic view.


I'd have to say that I'd try that route if it were my image. But, have always enjoyed looking at panoramic images...

I think your original image is pretty good as it is. I find that agree with a lot of what has been said, but at the same time I still go back to it and enjoy looking at it.

-Brian

[sun of sand]

I know this shi is old but I was searching "back tilt" and found this
decided to have some fun with it

I think the ridge shadows in foreground are too thick/fat. I cut em mostly out because of that. Dodge and burn to highlight ridges and hide other areas ..bring out that long winding ridge in the center a bit to hint of maybe glacial activity or the whatever
I kinda like those two or three shadowed "protuberances" of upper center mountaintop highlighted by sky

If ridges in foreground were shadowed a bit less I'd include more foreground but I don't know how much ..they're fat even without shadow.

It's different than the other options, at least. Ridge abstraction with distant mountains.