Catherdral Rocks from Valley View, Yosemite

[Donald]

On the first day I was out with Julia Reardin, staff photographer in the Ansel Adams Gallery, I spotted this tree when we stopped at Valley View (also known as 'Gates of the Valley') and decided that there was an image to be made featuring it. A few days later clouds from a thunderstorm to the south came over the valley. That was my chance to make the image I wanted.

This was one of the major advantages of spending a significant amount of time at Yosemite. I wasn't forced into capturing the photo through lack of available time. I could re-visit specific locations.

Your critique is always welcomed.

[DickyOZ]

Nice shot Donald. B&W works really well here. To me the rocks in the river give the impression the image is rotated a few degree clockwise; I tried 'leveling' the rocks and liked the result - the lean of the pine tree was even more dramatic and the the lower trees along the riverbank looked more upright.

[Donald]

Richard - Thank you for commenting. I found it quite difficult to judge 'level' with my eye whist I was there. Don't know why. So every frame that I shot was done so with the in-camera spirit level activated and at 'level' on the horizontal. However, not every frame was 'level' on the vertical and, as we know, when we do that we can cause some distortion.

It's a case of how much is acceptable for the purposes of creating the image we envisioned.

[Hans]

Great to see another photograph from the edit, Donald!

What a majestic and timeless rock formation. I like the square crop. Why did you crop this particular image that way?
Thinking out loud, I was wondering whether to look at the tree or the rock or the storm in the lower left corner. That is, what was the specific subject of this image in your mind? I began to think the tree was a distraction to the vista. However, the more I think about my roving eye, I feel the tree has the function of bringing my eyes down again to the foreground, to begin the adventure again. The fact that the origin of the tree is still within the frame and this I would suspect was intentional. Is the somewhat the intention?

As I sit and take this scene in, I am repeatedly drawn to the brewing storm and I think I may have been tempted to bend reality a little with the clouds by adding a touch more drama in the sky with dodging and burning (mostly burning), and maybe adding some contrast to the rocks to stand out as the obvious hero of the story, but that is me and I was not there to feel the scene as you have.

For me at least, I am wondering what it would be like with a lower point of view to exaggerate the foreground rocks and river and the height of the mountains and approaching ominous storm.

The image looks widish in focal length but I am not sure that it's not a standard lens either? I can't pick it. 35mm? or maybe 28mm?

Those are just my brutish thoughts of course. Thanks so much for sharing these with us and starting the conversation.

Kind regards,

Pete

[John 2]

Hi Donald. I can perhaps agree with Richard on the slight rotation because as soon as you put a frame around a scene. perception plays as much a part as the in camera level e.g. the far shore of a lake that looks tilted because it's actually at an angle rather than straight across the horizontal. However, this has been well composed, is beautifully rendered as a mono image and has more than a little of a fine art feel about it. I could happily live with it on a wall.

[Mike Buckley]

The framing, layers and texture are really wonderful.

As for the discussion about whether the image would benefit from rotation, I'll just mention that when making landscapes, particularly of mountain scenery, sometimes a level camera produces an inferior image. I don't know that that's the case here, but it is something to be aware of.

Consider getting rid of the sliver of bright rock at the bottom of the frame on the far right side. It's a bit distracting to my eye.

[Donald]

Thank you all for the comments above.

In response to specific questions asked by Pete (Hans):-

I like the square crop. Why did you crop this particular image that way?

If you know my work, you'll know that almost 99% of my images are square. I like the format. The picture was composed and captured to be a square image. In other words, it's a never a case of me deciding at the processing stage to make it square. That's decided before I press the shutter. Very helpfully, the 5DS allows me to set the format in the viewfinder or when using Liveview, so I can see my square picture. That obviously aids the composition.

Thinking out loud, I was wondering whether to look at the tree or the rock or the storm in the lower left corner. That is, what was the specific subject of this image in your mind?

The tree. The Cathedral Rocks were always the backdrop in my opinion.

The fact that the origin of the tree is still within the frame and this I would suspect was intentional. Is the somewhat the intention?

Absolutely.

As I sit and take this scene in, I am repeatedly drawn to the brewing storm and I think I may have been tempted to bend reality a little with the clouds by adding a touch more drama in the sky with dodging and burning (mostly burning), and maybe adding some contrast to the rocks to stand out as the obvious hero of the story, but that is me and I was not there to feel the scene as you have.

I think it's very easy to 'overcook' clouds in a scene like this. I prefer more subtlety.

For me at least, I am wondering what it would be like with a lower point of view to exaggerate the foreground rocks and river and the height of the mountains and approaching ominous storm.

That would probably yield a very good image. At the end of the day you make a compositional decision, fire the shutter and live with the consequences. This was the composition I found most aesthetically pleasing to my eye.

The image looks widish in focal length but I am not sure that it's not a standard lens either? I can't pick it. 35mm? or maybe 28mm?

If you look at the EXIF data you'll see that this was the 24-70 f2.8L lens set at, it tells me, 24.25mm

[Daisy Mae]

From the off I have to say that I am lucky enough to have had the opportunity to see this shot from some interesting angles, to enjoy it ..and to really LOOK at it.

I can understand that some people would prefer it with a rotation ..but for me .when you take in the 'bow' of the river..and consider the aspect Donald was shooting from then I think it would flatten the picture and some of its 'essence' would be lost.

Would I change it were it mine?

Yep..I might take out the few intrusive branches top right...and as Mr Buckley says..that 'sliver of rock bottom right. Id probably have darkened the deep 'V' in the mid section a tad also.

HOWEVER...this is Donald's take on a much photographed and iconic place. He is not trying to recreate AA's view..or mimic it...and that is TOUGH for a place such as this. Like adding ( or subtracting or changing something ) to the Mona Lisa.

I think Donald's touch is gentle..and respectful to the Original view of AA but also brings something of his own style to the mix.

What more is there to do?

[bnnrcn]

I wouldn't rotate the image, it is nice as is and I like it a lot I agree with Mike about that rock though.

[Mike Buckley]

What more is there to do?

The most important thing: enjoy viewing it!

[Hans]

Thanks again, Donald, for the replies.

At the end of the day you make a compositional decision, fire the shutter and live with the consequences.

Ha ha, this is very much my experience!

There is an understated strength to the square format. I can't explain it but it always seems to make a strong statement when used for these kinds of shots and some portraits I've seen. I'll have to look further into this for my own learning.

I got really tricky and took the image into LR and had a look at the EXIF data. I can't tell what you processed it in, but I fondly remember a conversation we had around 3 years ago when you called me a 'traitor' for going over to the dark side when I moved from GIMP to NX2, are you still using GIMP for your processing (just for interest sake)?

Look forward to more of your work...

Pete

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured, interesting dynamics with the angles.

[joebranko]

Very beautiful!

[Cogito]

The image looks widish in focal length but I am not sure that it's not a standard lens either? I can't pick it. 35mm? or maybe 28mm?

My copy of LR says the lens was set to 24mm.

Thanks again, Donald, for the replies.
I got really tricky and took the image into LR and had a look at the EXIF data. I can't tell what you processed it in, but I fondly remember a conversation we had around 3 years ago when you called me a 'traitor' for going over to the dark side when I moved from GIMP to NX2, are you still using GIMP for your processing (just for interest sake)?

Photoshop Elements 11.0 ...........

You might want to download a version of Exiftool - available for free for both Mac and Windows. View an image in that and ALL will be revealed......

[rpcrowe]

Beautiful image Donald...

[Donald]

I got really tricky and took the image into LR and had a look at the EXIF data. I can't tell what you processed it in, but I fondly remember a conversation we had around 3 years ago when you called me a 'traitor' for going over to the dark side when I moved from GIMP to NX2, are you still using GIMP for your processing (just for interest sake)?

I, too, have become a sort of traitor.

When I started using Silver Efex Pro seriously, I bought Elements 11 purely to act as 'mule' to carry the Nik plug-in. You can use it as a stand alone, but it works more easily and much better (e.g. as a Smart Filter) by using Elements (but with the Elements XXL plug-in also added, as it is this that allows SEP to be used as a Smart Filter).

I still have the GIMP software and use it for some dodging and burning.

[Manfred M]

Having taken a short break from my "day job", which currently involves several gallons of paint that are supposed to end up on the kitchen walls and ceiling, I had some time to view this image.

You have definitely stuck to the your style; the subtlety in technique and of course, the image is B&W. Seeing this image really has me wanting to get out to the USA west coast, someplace I haven't managed to get to.

With respect to the image being level. I too rely on either the electronic level in my camera or the bubble level on my tripod when setting up landscape shots (which seems to be a bit more reliable than the electronic level). That way, I know that the images are indeed level, and what I am looking at is not something I screwed up during capture.

Even so, I find quite often, the images that I know to be level, are not. This tells me that I have managed to introduce a "virtual horizon" that is not straight as a result of how the camera has captured the actual landscape. What I do in post largely depends on how I feel the day I am working on the image.

[Donald]

What I do in post largely depends on how I feel the day I am working on the image.

Exactly and whilst I respect all the views expressed above and thank people for them, this is the 'right' image for me. It captures and conveys what I 'saw' as I sat at Valley View and it is the image that I saw in my head on that day.

[Bobobird]

Definitely has my vote...

[Manfred M]

Exactly and whilst I respect all the views expressed above and thank people for them, this is the 'right' image for me. It captures and conveys what I 'saw' as I sat at Valley View and it is the image that I saw in my head on that day.

Like you, Donald I already have a view of what I want the image to look like in my "minds eye" when I press the shutter release. A very rarely change my mind when I open up the image for editing. I think this is the sign of a mature photographer who knows how to capture the image he or she wants. There are no surprises when the image is viewed on the large screen in the editing software.