The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
It took a mile and a half of sand wash to get to this one. And I took a left turn into a side canyon which was about shoulder width. The good news was that I had the place to myself and the light was bouncing around in there. I had been admiring these type of images for years and finally found a spot where I got the light I was looking for. I guess it was all those light gradients and texture that appealed to me.
Specific Feedback
It’s the cathedral look I’m after, those massive gothic cathedral. Does this convey their feeling? How can it convey it better?
Technical Details
GFX50R, 32-64mm, f/11
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
Igor, when I first looked at this photo I thought I could hang this on my wall. The light beckons me round the corner to see what big space resides there (your Cathedral?) I particularly like that you have not super saturated the colours and all the rock detail is present. I cannot think of anything to improve
Hi Igor. The light here conveys your sense of a cathedral to me, but when I first looked at it without reading that part of your post, that’s not where my mind went. I think it’s because I visualized that path as being maybe three or four feet wide and the scale just wasn’t cathedral like for me (caveat-I’ve never been in one). It’s still a gorgeous image-just doesn’t bring cathedrals to mind.
On a side note-the little black feature on the lower left slope really attracts my attention and even though I’m sure it’s part of the scene, it reminds me of a sensor dust bunny.
Don’t dust bunnies cause blurry lighter areas? I have looked at the image carefully and if it’s the dark spot I am thinking of that’s an overhang of the wall or a rock itself. The edges are too sharply defined. I do have an image where the foreground is razor sharp but I didn’t think it was necessary to merge it with the rest. The current image is sharp for the illuminated wall.
Hi Igor. It is sharp and I agree with what it is, It’s just that it draws my eye as if it were an alien object and not an integral part of the image. Just to be sure we’re talking about the same feature, here’s a close up screen shot of it.
My thoughts fall alongside Rob and Dennis. You always do a magnificent job of controlling light, and it’s well done here.
I find cathedrals to be ornate and complicated, where as this images feels simpler. Also, when I’m in cathedrals for some reason my eye is always pulled up to the ornate above. For me this image has some of that, the light certainly sweeps the eye that way, but I too get an “around the corner” interest. Maybe it’s the strong sweep of the lower part of the image being horizontal? It’s not a good or bad thing, IMHO, it’s just that “cathedral” wasn’t my initial impression.
Outstanding and well balanced image. And by well balanced, I mean several things. Compositionally, it’s balanced beautifully between the darker wall on the left, the detailed wall on the right and then of course the “cathedral” lighting that pulls the eye upward (hence a kind a cathedral effect…) It’s also balanced perfectly with light and shadow as well as color. Outstanding, Really enjoy this one.
I’m a bit with John in that my first impression wasn’t a gothic cathedral. However, I can easily see and draw the comparison. The darker wall on the left, could actually be the foot/base of a giant gargoyle… or some ornate feature. Actually, the details of the RH was can be interpreted as “gothic”; certainly with great detail and design. Lastly, it’s that “looking up” feeling that would be just like if one was standing in a cathedral with all kinds of ornate objects, painings or stained glass…
I would agree that the small, black object is a minor distraction. No issue really here for web presentation, but I expect might be more distracting in a large print.
A lovely wash of soft light that folds around the curves of the passage way in a very aesthetic manner. I guess the light just glances the rock face as it also reveals the textures of the lit wall very nicely. Pleasing.
Igor, the lighting here is fantastic. As I view, the perspective keeps changing, sometimes the darker side is behind and sometimes in front…the old “what do you see here” illusion. The walls do feel massive. Quite the find.
Hi Igor. I think this accomplishes everything you were hoping for the image. It’s a clean, classic looking study of the slot canyons that I also love. I have had experiences just like the one you describe. My approach to photography has been informed by the work of Stephen and Rachel Kaplan, who research and teach in environmental psychology and wrote “The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective”. They found that our needs and preferences in the enjoyment of nature involve a balance between mystery and legibility, and between complexity and unity. Your image strikes that balance nicely. Nicely done. I’m not distracted at all by the small object in the left bottom.
Another marvellous image, Igor. It is a very strong composition that embraces colour and light in a way that gives it an almost abstract quality, which is, I think the “balance” that @Paul_Larsen is referring to.
Nobody has mentioned it but to me the left darker wall seems oversaturated. Do you agree? It seems to me that either it should be unsaturated or the rest should be saturated to match it. I hate to desaturate it because I love those dark reds but saturating the rest might start to look gaudy. Here’s another composition I did where the two parts look more in sync. Actually this might be a better image. What do you think?
I prefer the original photo posted. If anything,perhaps the top center highlights of the original could be reduced a little to enhance detail. Personally, I like going with what my mind saw when taking the photo. Bringing my mind and the dng together is the difficult bit.
I also prefer the original. Again, I think of this image in more abstract terms and if you like those dark reds then, absolutely, go with it. With any image (short of photojournalism), but this sort in particular - it isn’t what it looked like but what it felt like that matters. The second version feels a bit flat and less arresting to me.
I agree with Rob and Kerry. Having spent a fair amount of time in slot canyons and red rock country, I know how reflected light can make sandstone glow in a way that direct sunlight will not. Your image doesn’t look oversaturated to me. Instead, it brings up memories of time spent in similar places where the light is magical. I have an image of the full moon setting over Great Salt Lake. A reviewer said it looked too saturated to him. In reality, I did little to saturate the moon. The red color came from wildfire smoke that was in the atmosphere and affecting not only the moon, but much of the light even though it was blue hour. Go with your intuition on this one, but I like your image just as you presented it.
I find I’m on the “more” end of the bell curve when it comes to color, so I too prefer the original. My eye expects the color to be more saturated in those darker areas, and I personally enjoy it too.
