Camelback Mountain

[ShaneS]

An image taken from the base of Camelback Mountain in Arizona early one morning on my recent trip. For good or bad the sun was on the back side of the mountain when I arrived so I patiently waited for the light and then the cloud pattern that you see to be uniform in the sky before pressing the shutter.

I like the hint of a trail up to the desert buttes and tried to emphasize that in my processing.

Any and all C&C welcome.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[IzzieK]

Shane, this is a nice one you have here...just a thought -- the hint of trail you mentioned is barely noticeable until you mentioned it...you could have left that comment off and let your audience comment on it -- just for the sheer mystery of your story...just my opinion, what do I know???

And oh, btw...are you still allowed to put the 'l' you've missed on your subject line? Just asking...

[Mike Buckley]

I like the soft, somewhat backlighting.

The trail is obvious to me without Shane's comment, but that's probably because my wife and I enjoy hiking and I'm used to looking ahead to see where the trail is. Seeing a scene like this is when I typically remark to my wife that I have some good news and some bad news: the good news is that we're going up there and the bad news is that we're going "up" there.

I have a penchant for tight crops, probably to a fault. I would crop this image at the top a little below the top of the highest part of the ridge line on the right to make the image more prominently about the land. In the current format, the sky and land have more equal importance and that duality makes my eye switch back and forth between the two primary elements rather than comfortably settle on the land.

Camelback mountain is probably the most popular hike in the Phoenix area. I had the impression from reading about the hike that its primary purpose is to get to the top. I usually don't like that type of hike as much as others where getting there is an equally enjoyable part of the process. Your photo gives me the impression that the scenery on the way to the top would be just as enjoyable as the scene at the top and that perhaps we should have taken that hike.

Shane can change the title of the thread anytime that she wants (by clicking the "Go Advanced" button). However, once a thread has been reviewed, the changes will be displayed only when the thread is opened, not when the thread is listed among all of the other threads.

[ShaneS]

Thanks John, Izzie and Mike. I sat on the image as is for a day or two before some final tweaks and then posted it here as done. I do like it but feel like it is missing something so I think that I am going to try and do a different, darker, edit on this one to satisfy my own curiosity and see if I can accomplish what I have in my head for this image. I will check out the crop suggestion at that point.

FYI Mike that is not really a trail but a wash and although I was tempted to traverse it I decided against it as I had already slipped on some loose rocks on ground that was much more level! I got a scraped elbow and calf for my troubles but the camera never hit the ground

Thanks again...

[flashback]

Shane, there is an almost 3D quality to this image that I really like.
And also, because *someone* in here is constantly seeing faces in our images; I see two in yours. RHS, upper half of the image, one face on the second to top formation, twisted and looking down on what looks like 1/2 of ET's face. Or is this all in my head? Great image though.

[Mike Buckley]

Shane,

While you try different approaches, try selecting the dirt and increasing the saturation and warmth. It can be done very slightly resulting in a very realistic look that doesn't appear enhanced yet produces a slightly more dramatic look. I actually maintain a "red rock" setting for use with red rock and sometimes for soil such as in this scene even though it does not have the iron in it that makes red rock appear so red.

[Dave Humphries]

A helpful mod has added the missing "l" to the thread title, which has updated everyone's replies

Unfortunately, editing the first post alone doesn't do that, but then we mods have to have something to do here

[IzzieK]

OFF TOPIC: Sorry Shane...you could have entitled this differently for Jack's sake... was trying to be serious...

You've missed a lot, Jack...

[flashback]

I mentioned the one you captioned as 'this one looks scary'. It's staring straight down at ET.
Now all Shane will ever see in this shot are our imaginary faces (and possibly scarred psyches).

[Mike Buckley]

OFF TOPIC

I haven't yet decided how I feel about the recent compulsion to point out unintended likenesses in photos.

The reason it even comes into question is that I had a recent experience in which a face was pointed out that I would never have seen on my own. Once it was pointed out, I always saw it when I viewed the photo. It was always a distraction, which made viewing the photo less enjoyable.

The likenesses have never been brought to our attention as a detraction or as an attribute. If they were, there would be indisputable, understandable reason for mentioning them.

The upside of pointing them out is the potential for bringing a bit of whimsical humor to our day. The downside is the potential described above. I haven't yet decided if the downside is so important that it should be discouraged.

I mention this because I'm certain that the people enjoying discussing the likenesses were not aware of the potential downside. Otherwise, they wouldn't discuss them.

[IzzieK]

I mentioned the one you captioned as 'this one looks scary'. It's staring straight down at ET.
Now all Shane will ever see in this shot are our imaginary faces (and possibly scarred psyches).

I think we better start behaving Jack...or I am going to be kicked out of this site for having a very fertile imagination...

[flashback]

On a couple of images I've posted I actually did some PP on a couple of areas because I saw images that I felt were distracting to me. Had I posted and someone commented on it I likely would have gone back and removed the distraction. If one person can see it, others will too, maybe better to know early on?

And I'll have to find the photo of Mount Rushmore to show the PP I did on that to hide the faces I kept seeing.

[Mike Buckley]

CONTINUED OFF-TOPIC

If one person can see it, others will too, maybe better to know early on?

However, as I mentioned above, that has never been the intent (at least not the explained intent) of the people mentioning the likenesses. So, that begs the question of the usefulness of mentioning them.

Some likenesses can't be removed. In those cases and when the likeness could be distracting but only to those who happen to see it, there is no helpful critique in mentioning it. For those who would not see the likeness absent someone mentioning it, bringing the likeness to their attention can cause the photo to be forever less enjoyable.

Moreover, I'm getting the impression (perhaps wrongly so) that some people are making a point of looking for likenesses that even they would otherwise not see. It's almost as if there has become a pride of identifying likenesses that others can't see and that's not the domain of critical review of photography.

This is my last post on the subject in this thread, as I feel bad that I have so strongly contributed to the hijacking of Shane's thread.

[ShaneS]

A helpful mod has added the missing "l" to the thread title, which has updated everyone's replies

Unfortunately, editing the first post alone doesn't do that, but then we mods have to have something to do here

Thank you Dave...sometimes my fingers don't cooperate with my brain!

[ShaneS]

It seems that I have a habit of making things too bright...

I have darkened the image down a bit and added the warmth and saturation to the soil as suggested by Mike and I think that the image is improved.

However, all of my attempts to crop as Mike suggested leaves me at a loss. It seems that in losing a bit of the sky I also lose too much of the wrap around effect of the buttes that I feel adds depth to the image (keeping the same aspect ratio). Mike, feel free to have a go at the crop and post it here if your are so inclined as I just can't see it.



Any additional thoughts and/or suggestions would be appreciated.

As an aside, I think that the discussion of likenesses in the imagery posted on the site in general feels a bit like the game of Where's Waldo and have often wondered how it fits in with the goals of the site to improve our photography. It is a bit of a distraction and I choose to ignore it for the most part.

[Mike Buckley]

The revised version definitely has more pop. However, in my mind it's in the category of being different, not necessarily better. It's so nice, though, to learn that you like it more.

Consider trying the treatment of the land in the second one and the treatment of the sky in the first one.

I agree that the crop I suggested eliminates the wrap-around effect that you mentioned.

[ShaneS]

Thanks Mike! I did as you suggested regarding the best of both images and now I am really happy

That saturation/warmth tip now resides in my bag 'o tricks and is forever linked to you in my mind.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks Mike! I did as you suggested regarding the best of both images and now I am really happy

Ahem. You must show us the results.

[ShaneS]

If you insist...

Here is the final images but please note that the changes are pretty subtle.



Thanks again to everyone for their comments and suggestions.