Bryce Canyon in B & W

[MTGFender]

Bryce Canyon, UT

Thanks for viewing!
_________________________________
Pramote
http://pramotelaoprasert.zenfolio.com/

[Paulo Bizarro]

Nice B&W. I am not sure about the inclusion of the rock in the foreground, to me it sort of it´s in the way, blocking the view of the fantastic background.

[Walt Roycraft]

Nice B&W. I am not sure about the inclusion of the rock in the foreground, to me it sort of it´s in the way, blocking the view of the fantastic background.

+1

[MTGFender]

Thanks Paulo and Walt! I agree with your comments.
Although I like this image for the texture of the big rock, I like the other one I posted a couple of weeks ago better.
This is a fun part of posting images here! I really appreciate them.

Pramote

[sdwilsonsct]

#1: super. I like all the lines that lead the eye into the middle.

[Alan Klein]

I like the one without the rock better too.  The one with the rock may have been better iof you moved over to a different location to change the size and perspective, assuming there was room to move.

[markadams99]

Very nice. I'd retreat a little to include the whole of the rock in the foreground.

[Larry Heath]

As always I hope you don’t mind my fiddling with your work.

So if it’s going to be a B&W make it so it has some black and white, not just shades of gray. The sun is low on the horizon there are going to be inky blacks down in the backs of all those fingers and as well there are going to be almost specular highlights coming off the panicles and the left wall of the canyon. Give me some drama from an exceedingly dramatic vista.

From the old days in zone speak your image is a wonderful 7 zone image, where everything has texture and detail, not in any sense a mean task in this light and especially so if you had been using film. The question becomes are you making an image for a text book or an evocative fine art image for display in a gallery.



Of course it could all be just my stilted sensibilities.

Later Larry

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I think the beautifully and well composed original(s) as well as the edit are oversharpened and therefore quite uncalm.
They also lack contrast in the important lower spatial frequencies. I believe this really needs a fix.
An Larry: I really think your Flickr photostream is not the proper place for an edit of a foreign image.
Cheers
~Chris

My suggestion:

[Jeremy Roussak]

I like the one without the rock better too.  The one with the rock may have been better iof you moved over to a different location to change the size and perspective, assuming there was room to move.

He could always have moved the rock, of course...

Pramote, I'm inspired. I'll be at Bryce in a few weeks; if I can come up with anything half as good as these, I'll be a happy bunny.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Having been to Bryce once myself, I must say that I like both of Pramote's photos, and I prefer his rendering to those of either Larry or Christoph (sorry, guys!), because their fixes both begin to look hoaky to me. I could accept a slight increase in local contrast, but not as far as either of these esteemed gentlemen have taken the image.

Eric

P.S. The colors of Bryce, like Antelope Canyon, are so compelling that it is tempting to push the colors. So I find it a quite satisfying change to see these iconic places in B&W.

[Alan Klein]

The latter ones with additional contrast are appealing although the second variation is too smoothe IMO.  It comes down to personal preference.  They both work as far as shades depending upon time of day I would think.  I've never been to Bryce.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I think we are in highly subjective waters here.

Larrys and my edit are actually in opposite directions.
While Larry went for pushing the smaller, more detailed features of the images, I went exactly the opposite way.
I wouldn't say one or the other direction is necessarily better, though I myself have a clear preference, of course.

I think Erics impression of the edits becoming hokey shows we are in the borderlands of good taste, which I think is great.
Good images often are in exactly these borderlands between boredom and kitsch, and it seems we were successful in exploring these.

Cheers
~Chris

[Walt Roycraft]

Thanks Paulo and Walt! I agree with your comments.
Although I like this image for the texture of the big rock, I like the other one I posted a couple of weeks ago better.
This is a fun part of posting images here! I really appreciate them.

Pramote

Pramote, I much prefer this second view. Thanks for sharing.

[MTGFender]

Thank you friends for your comments! I enjoy them
I study rules but I do not use them all the times, zone system, 1/3 etc. I don't want all my pictures look the same. Please don't get me wrong, I've been studying Ansel Adam's pictures extensively. My favorite is "400 pictures" which I've been reading numerous times.
When I edited the pictures. I spent time, sometimes hours, until I am satisfied with the result. I am not a "Pro" and I don't need to sell prints for living, therefore, I've done them for my satisfaction.
My ultimate goal is the print, not the jpeg on the screen. I've printed most of my photos on either 17"-x 22" or 13" x 19" prints on the Epson 4900. I've been thinking about the Epson 9900 but it will be impossible as long as my wife lives These 2 pictures taken with a Nikon D300 (~10mp) long ago but they were printed well in 17"x 22" print size.
I appreciate everyone's comments.

Pramote

[MTGFender]

I've attached another picture. Anyone want to analyzed using a zone system?
Thanks
Pramote

[Larry Heath]

Oh, look an Ansel Adams image. How cute. I wonder why you should choose it? Dangling a wee bit of bait are we?

Ok, fine no problem, take this image apply a levels mask, move the gamma point to 0.9 maybe a touch more. That would be my ideal/preconceived notion of what this Adams image should look like.

Now your comments would be?

As to some others commenting in this thread let me say this:

It seems a shame, at least to me, that some think smarmy remarks on others lack of an august presence in these surroundings, or any other for that matter, or less than perfect execution in an attempt to convey a different flavor of how any given image might be handled, are grounds for passing straight derogatory comments. Hokey? Sure great ok, no problem Eric. One hopes those passing these types of comments have not suffer any permanent damage to their limbs, or eyesight, while patting themselves on the back or looking down their noses at others from such lofty heights as they have attained. One might suppose, with so much to offer as is apparent by your body of work Eric, one might have expected better, I guess not.

Later Larry

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Larry,

I'm not sure what I wrote that prompted your comments ("smarmy," etc.) that seem to be directed at me. All I did was suggest that of the renditions presented by Pramote, You, and Christoph, my own preference was Pramote's own. Perhaps you were offended that I misspelled "hokey," for which I humbly apologize.

As Chris said, "I think we are in highly subjective waters here." I agree. I wasn't telling either of you what you should like. I was just saying how the versions affected me. And I'm quite sure that a lot of my own work looks "hokey" to others.

So, if I offended you, I apologize, even though I'm not sure what my offense was.

Eric

[MTGFender]

Please do not misunderstand. It's not a bait as I did not request anyone in particular to comment about one of Ansel Adams' photos. I just want to learn something as I am not quite clear about the statement "So if it’s going to be a B&W make it so it has some black and white, not just shades of gray". I don't think this statement apply to all pictures. It would be boring if everything has the same shade, no low key, high key etc.

Pramote