Posting this here to get a second thought on conveying context.
We were driving back through the Canadian Rockies in June, and once we passed Radium it was grey and drizzly with patches of bright overcast sky. It's a two lane highway surrounded by forested valleys and mountains, with only the very peaks being bare granite. At some point, along a valley there was a huge expanse of burnt forest, with three or so peaks completely stripped of their greenery. From the highway everything seemed to be ashen and burnt, with only hints of green showing. We pulled out to a hiking trail head and I managed to snap a few handheld frames; at ground level the new growth was much more evident than from the road. It was basically a bathroom break for my fiance and I, so I didn't have too much time.
I tried to emphasize the vibrant bright new growth in an old (and National Park protected) alpine forest. However, the limited DOF obscures the impact of the burnt old growth. I read this two ways:
a) I aimed to convey immediacy of standing amongst the greenery with a hint of what happened, the wide angle and defocused background do this well.
b) I should have used a tripod and longer lens to bring in the background, creating a strong contrast between burnt and green, with more distant details in focus.
(a) or (b), what say you? Any comments on colour balance or such are welcome, this is a Portra 400NC scan quickly processed with a homebrew lightroom preset, I didn't do any dodging, burning or additional curve work.
