Boulder

[Sam W]

I spent a good bit of time in this conversion but only toward the end of my effort did I notice that this boulder is not sitting on very much. Thanks for viewing. C&C welcome.

[Geoff F]

It works OK although I wonder if there are too many similar grey tones in that complicated background which tends to lose some of the impact compared with a colour version? Depends on what sort of an effect you were after, I suppose.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sam,

I like a lot of your recent work, but for me, this one isn't as good as I'd like to be (which might be impossible!) because;
a) Lots of similar tones and equally sharp details.
b) Haven't managed to use a narrow enough Depth of Field to achieve blur of distant and foreground tree branches.
c) Haven't found a colour channel choice in conversion to make the sky a much darker tone - it too is very similar to everything else.

My apologies for being so negative, especially if you spent some time on it.
I see from EXIF: Nikon D750 at 24mm, f/8, 1/125s and iso 100.

Does look precarious - good job you didn't sneeze while taking the photo - that lot could seriously spoil your day

Dave

[Shadowman]

Nice, I would take advantage of the cast shadows to bring out the shapes.

[Sam W]

It works OK although I wonder if there are too many similar grey tones in that complicated background which tends to lose some of the impact compared with a colour version? Depends on what sort of an effect you were after, I suppose.

I think you're right. I'm going to try an update to address that. Thanks for your comments.

[Sam W]

Hi Sam,

I like a lot of your recent work, but for me, this one isn't as good as I'd like to be (which might be impossible!) because;
a) Lots of similar tones and equally sharp details.
b) Haven't managed to use a narrow enough Depth of Field to achieve blur of distant and foreground tree branches.
c) Haven't found a colour channel choice in conversion to make the sky a much darker tone - it too is very similar to everything else.

My apologies for being so negative, especially if you spent some time on it.
I see from EXIF: Nikon D750 at 24mm, f/8, 1/125s and iso 100.

Does look precarious - good job you didn't sneeze while taking the photo - that lot could seriously spoil your day

Dave

Dave I appreciate your comments, don't worry about being negative. I'd be happy I you'd say to stop posting boring photos :-)

I was basically trying to make the best attempt of an conversion given the photo. For future photos I will need to pay more attention to the DOF. Usually, I'm hiking so fast that I don't take the necessary time needed to get the best shot possible.

You are right some of the issues I can not address now in PP but I did take a shot at making the sky darker (see below). Thanks again for your C&C.

Edit #1

[Sam W]

Nice, I would take advantage of the cast shadows to bring out the shapes.

Thanks John, I tried to take advantage of the cast shadows to bring out the shapes in Edit #1. Thanks for our comments.

[Wavelength]

Excellent...

[Dave Humphries]

~ I did take a shot at making the sky darker

That certainly does help separate the boulder in many areas, although there are some odd places where sunlit highlights on trunks and branches are now more visible against the darker sky.

Overall, definitely better IMHO.


The shadows of the out of shot tree cast on to the boulder do add more complexity to an already complex image and I almost flagged them up as "d)" in my first list, but since they help define the shape of the boulder, they are a positive for the picture as a whole.

In fact studying them now Sam, I'd say you did well to wait until the sun had put them in the best place for the composition - except you already blew that accolade by admitting to 'fast hiking' and insufficient time in taking shots
(but you'll know for next time)

Cheers, Dave

[Rebel]

I really like it, especially the edit.

I love the shadow of the tree on the boulder, it makes the image for me!

Nice work Sam.

[Tronhard]

I am amazed at how the components of the boulder hold each other together on what seems to be a very small support base. Nothing to do with the photographic technique as such I admit but it is an intriguing subject from a structural point of view.

[joebranko]

Edit 1 makes a more powerful image. Great shot!

[Manfred M]

Sam - while your second edit improves on the first, it still isn't working all that well for me and I suspect the issue is problem is caused by the harsh lighting and the associated hard shadows. It the metadata associated with this shot is correct, it was taken at around 1:30 in the afternoon; not the best time for landscape work. I suspect that something closer to sunset and softer light might have worked better.

I find that the image is just too busy and I can't really get a visual and mental "lock" on the rock.

A more minor point, I don't like the gap between the tree on the right hand side of the image and the edge of the shot; that's a bit distracting too.

[IzzieK]

There is a cute little doggie sitting down with a rock by its chin there...I like the original better though..

[Sam W]

That certainly does help separate the boulder in many areas, although there are some odd places where sunlit highlights on trunks and branches are now more visible against the darker sky.

Overall, definitely better IMHO.


The shadows of the out of shot tree cast on to the boulder do add more complexity to an already complex image and I almost flagged them up as "d)" in my first list, but since they help define the shape of the boulder, they are a positive for the picture as a whole.

In fact studying them now Sam, I'd say you did well to wait until the sun had put them in the best place for the composition - except you already blew that accolade by admitting to 'fast hiking' and insufficient time in taking shots
(but you'll know for next time)

Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave - I realize it is not the best shot but it may be a pretty good one from which to learn. Best regards

[Sam W]

Thanks Matt!

[Sam W]

I am amazed at how the components of the boulder hold each other together on what seems to be a very small support base. Nothing to do with the photographic technique as such I admit but it is an intriguing subject from a structural point of view.

Thanks Trev - aside from the abundant photographic issues is does stand as interesting phenomenon. I would like to have my camera when it decides to roll down the trail :-)

[Sam W]

Edit 1 makes a more powerful image. Great shot!

Thanks Joe - I think it is still a work in progress which might entail another new shot :-)

[Sam W]

Sam - while your second edit improves on the first, it still isn't working all that well for me and I suspect the issue is problem is caused by the harsh lighting and the associated hard shadows. It the metadata associated with this shot is correct, it was taken at around 1:30 in the afternoon; not the best time for landscape work. I suspect that something closer to sunset and softer light might have worked better.

I find that the image is just too busy and I can't really get a visual and mental "lock" on the rock.

A more minor point, I don't like the gap between the tree on the right hand side of the image and the edge of the shot; that's a bit distracting too.

Hi Manfred - The harsh lighting was a challenge that I took on in PP to make the best I could out of it. I agree with your assessment. I've attached a different photo below from the same hike. Although taken in the late morning it might address some the fundamental issues with the first photo. Or I could just be digging a deeper hole :-)

[Sam W]

There is a cute little doggie sitting down with a rock by its chin there...I like the original better though..

I see it!