Death Valley Dunes tele images

[Pete Berry]

The pano a morning 235mm EFL two-shot image; the close one 150mm. GH3/Pana-Leica 14-150mm (2Xcrop factor).

Critique and comments appreciated. Thanks for looking.

Pete

[luxborealis]

The Pano - very effective, although do I detect a slight halo in the sky above the mountains, particularly on the left side?

Dunes II - great foreground and wonderful lighting on the dunes. I feel trapped, though, by the closely-cropped background/sky.

Thanks for sharing.

[Pete Berry]

The Pano - very effective, although do I detect a slight halo in the sky above the mountains, particularly on the left side?

Dunes II - great foreground and wonderful lighting on the dunes. I feel trapped, though, by the closely-cropped background/sky.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for your comments, Terry. I do see a suggestion of sky halo artifact on the left in this small image, but not at larger file sizes or on the 15.5 x 34" print.

I think my state of mind at the time I took to second may have been showing, though! A slightly wonky knee after an hour's soft sand slogging, and finding my wife to have disappeared with the water with the day's heat building, were definitely disconcerting. The image itself is uncropped, with the curious blue-gray of the hard pan (reflecting sky?) beyond. I agree that more would be better, so I cloned in another 3/4". Better? More?

Pete

[luxborealis]

That does it for me, but, more importantly, it has to sit right with you.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I agree with the comments above, and yes - the second version of the dunes is better.
When I looked at it the first time I had a feeling like:
"Great image, but .." - but i didn't analyze what it was.
I think the sky being to tight on the first version nailed it.
The first is very fine as well, fix the halo and you're done.
Thanks for sharing.

Cheers
~Chris

[Pete Berry]

I agree with the comments above, and yes - the second version of the dunes is better.
When I looked at it the first time I had a feeling like:
"Great image, but .." - but i didn't analyze what it was.
I think the sky being to tight on the first version nailed it.
The first is very fine as well, fix the halo and you're done.
Thanks for sharing.

Cheers
~Chris

Thanks for your comments, Chris. After re-visiting the close dune image this morning, I'm ready to commit it to an A2 print. The distant blue-gray is not sky but the alkali hard-pan beyond the dunes, which contributed to the tight framing originally to give more of an "endless" feeling to the dunes - and which just didn't work!

The suggestion of halo in the pano image is curious, though, as it's simply not seen in my working file sizes and on the 15.5 x34" print - and it's something I'm quite attuned to. Attached is a scan of the upper left 1' of the print.

Pete

[Alan Klein]

nice shots.  Yes a little mOre "sky" works better.  I like the people or animal tracks in the dunes.

[Peter McLennan]

I like the people or animal tracks in the dunes.

Sometimes.     Especially if they're mine. 

[Pete Berry]

nice shots.  Yes a little mOre "sky" works better.  I like the people or animal tracks in the dunes.

Thanks. Critter tracks close, but some boot-shod biped tracks on the second dune were cloned out.

Pete

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Sometime output sharpening for web display on various software packages does funky things with edges, like halos.
I usually switch it off, since it screws up my images.

[sdwilsonsct]

The image itself is uncropped, with the curious blue-gray of the hard pan (reflecting sky?) beyond. I agree that more would be better, so I cloned in another 3/4". Better? More?

Very nice now. I like the detail in the background.

[Pete Berry]

Very nice now. I like the detail in the background.

Thanks, Scott, and all who have commented to help me out of my myopic view... I just printed up a 17x25 on Ilford GFS, and it looks quite nice indeed with its greater headroom!

Pete

[Graham Clark]

The pano a morning 235mm EFL two-shot image; the close one 150mm. GH3/Pana-Leica 14-150mm (2Xcrop factor).

Critique and comments appreciated. Thanks for looking.

Pete

Nice! I like the Mesquite Sand Dunes shot the most, but the harsh light during daylight kind of gives it a grab shot quality. What if you converted it into high-contrast B&W? It may give it another look entirely.

[Graham Clark]

The pano a morning 235mm EFL two-shot image; the close one 150mm. GH3/Pana-Leica 14-150mm (2Xcrop factor).

Critique and comments appreciated. Thanks for looking.

Pete

here's a bad example of a normal daylight harsh light image in IR/B&W.

[Pete Berry]

Nice! I like the Mesquite Sand Dunes shot the most, but the harsh light during daylight kind of gives it a grab shot quality. What if you converted it into high-contrast B&W? It may give it another look entirely.

Thanks, Graham. Take a look at the B/W I just converted, and the pano I'd previously done - which I'm liking more than the original now, I think.

Pete

[Graham Clark]

Thanks, Graham. Take a look at the B/W I just converted, and the pano I'd previously done - which I'm liking more than the original now, I think.

Pete

awesome! I like the first converted B&W image, but the sky gives an unnatural appearance. it looks like an algorithm calculated the texture. what did the original sky look like?

[Pete Berry]

awesome! I like the first converted B&W image, but the sky gives an unnatural appearance. it looks like an algorithm calculated the texture. what did the original sky look like?

The original sky looked very much like the sky in the B/W pano, but...'tis not sky you are seeing here! Rather, the alkali hard pan lying beyond the dunes that took on a very sky-like blue-gray in the color version - ?reflecting the sky.

Pete