Up in the mountains.

ancient_mariner

ancient_mariner

Moderator
Messages
23,548
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
We recently did a trip across the Rockies between Vancouver and Edmonton, and may have taken just a couple of pictures. ;)

Revelstoke-07837_zpsbef1917d.jpg~original


Weta-08310_zpsf4e574f4.jpg~original


Weta-08492_zpsef3b6c43.jpg~original


Mountains-08508_zps546a5a38.jpg~original

I'm still working on some of these, so comments are welcome.
 
Thanks Gents.

@Carlh I don't have the least idea! I was just totally bushed from climbing to the top and the high altitude there, and lacked the energy/bravado to go down that slope (on the opposite side I'd climbed up) to read the cross.

As a photographer, if I lived in the Rockies i think I'd never *need* to go anywhere else for pictures.
 
Not sure what's going on here, but they all look disturbingly artificial, especially the last one! They smack of inadequate originals desperately over-processed. No2 comes the nearest to hanging together.
 
droj said:
Not sure what's going on here, but they all look disturbingly artificial, especially the last one! They smack of inadequate originals desperately over-processed. No2 comes the nearest to hanging together.
Click to expand...

I agree with the over-processed comment about the last image. The rest stand out as a bunch of outstanding images.

Hope you enjoyed your trip. Somewhere i'd love to photograph if I had the money or the physical ability to climb a "mountain"!
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Thanks Gents.

@Carlh I don't have the least idea! I was just totally bushed from climbing to the top and the high altitude there, and lacked the energy/bravado to go down that slope (on the opposite side I'd climbed up) to read the cross.

As a photographer, if I lived in the Rockies i think I'd never *need* to go anywhere else for pictures.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would have everything, from wildlife, to flowers to macro insects, landscapes, long-exposures. Would never get bored!
 
droj said:
Not sure what's going on here, but they all look disturbingly artificial, especially the last one! They smack of inadequate originals desperately over-processed. No2 comes the nearest to hanging together.
Click to expand...

Comments like this aren't IMHO helpful unless you can elaborate why they are disturbingly artificial. Bar some cloud exposure issues in the last one, I don't see the issue.
 
Granted that you passed through a remarkable place Toni and that these are your memories ...

No 1 Composition-wise, the two tallest trees flanking the frame sort of compete with each other for attention, whilst framing ... an obscuration of thick haze. In other words, the conditions were too poor, unfortunately, to make a good picture.
No 2 Much better - the asymmetrical composition is far superior to the symmetry of No 1 and the tones are generally satisfying.
No 3 Ok, though I'd say that the mountain range is a bit clenched by the sides of the picture. But that little white cross disrupts the whole frame!
No 4 This one more than any exemplifies what I meant by artificiality, and I think it's to do with tonal management and local contrast - the spur left foreground has a good strong presence, but the ridges beyond appear strange. The sky business has been already mentioned by Steve ...
 
Steve, I had possibly incorrectly, assumed droj was talking about how I'd pushed the images to increase impact, with number 2 having the least 'pop'. I'd ignored the comment about inadequate orignals because I'm working from RAW, which is always a bit dull, and require work to produce something presentable. The mixed variety of comments and different likes & dislikes tells me that they're probably not too far off, but need a bit of controlling in places - especially skies - and enhancement in others. Sometimes 'natural' is just plain dull, so reality needs a little help, and being advised that I've gone OTT will help me reign things back.
 
Droj - thanks for coming back & clarifying.

Just to mention that in no.3 that disruption by the little white cross is intentional, so for me you've vindicated the image in a way. :)
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Comments like this aren't IMHO helpful unless you can elaborate why they are disturbingly artificial. Bar some cloud exposure issues in the last one, I don't see the issue.
Click to expand...

The clouds are a little close to the exposure limit in the RAW file... Otherwise I can't see anything artificial. One has to see such scene to believe it. We don't have it like that in the UK, but some scenes in the scottish highlands are getting close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top