This is an image from my recent Fall colors trip. This is actually very large scale Tafone in the Utah badlands. There is no scale to this image but this is about 4-5 feet tall and is on the bend in a dry riverbed. My guess is that when the water continually flows through here after storms, it hit this bend in the river and and starts to carve out this large scale tafone over millions of years. That’s just my assumption. I had a terrible time trying to balance to get just one image so this is not a photo stack. I wish it was but I’m not terribly bothered by the shallow depth of field. Your mileage may vary on that. Let me know.
Specific Feedback Requested
As I mentioned above, this is only one frame and not a photo stack. I just couldn’t position myself, with or without a tripod, to take several images so this is just one shot hand held. Does the shallow depth of field bother you?
Is there anything else that catches your eye?
Any and all comments and critiques are very welcome and appreciated!
Technical Details
Z7ii, 24-70mm lens @ 37mm, ISO 100, f/9, 1/20, hand held
2 Likes
Not really, David. I can’t really tell if there is any noise deep in the dark areas that would be an item you might have seen or repaired in post processing.
If you use NIK at all you could try to balance the upper and lower a bit in exposure with a ND Filter in that kit. But not anything on that point beyond an experimentation for a different look in the end.
With this all said the image is wonderful from a uniqueness aspect overall. I like it a lot… 
Hey David! The shallow depth of field doesn’t bother me at all. I think it actually adds to the photo and the location specifically. You’ve done a really nice job, capturing contrast in light here, but still maintaining the details of the overall scene.
I’m with David and Paul about the shallow depth of field. I think this photo is very unique. You did a nice job with the processing too. Looking around this image, I started to see little pictures 
. Great job on this shot. There’s nothing not to like.
I very much appreciate you taking the time to comment on this post @Paul_Breitkreuz, @Donna_Callais, and @David_Johnston.
It looks like the shallow depth of field is not really bothering anyone, so that’s great. It is VERY shallow so I wanted to get some feedback on that. Thanks again!
1 Like
The dark black holes work nicely with the white foreground. The composition is suggestive and therefore less literal than some of your small scenes. I think it’s a good direction to explore some more. Yeah, there is a creepy aspect to this image. Like a skull or bones. I guess that’s why they call it badlands. In order to see if the DOF is an issue I would print this and then decide.
I really enjoy the composition here David, and the contrast of the two stones with the mystery of the dark holes adds. I likely would have enjoyed an image with everything in focus as well, but I don’t mind the lack thereof here because it accentuates the lighter stone. I think it would be a bigger issue if the white stone was out of focus.
Thank you very much @Igor_Doncov, @John_Williams for your comments on this odd apparition.
Igor…This really is pretty creepy. I didn’t want to lead with any intentions of this being creepy in the title so that everyone could come to their own conclusions but I’m with you. This is a creepy looking image. I see a face or a mask with contorted eyes, nose and mouth. I have printed this one out and I’ll see how it sits after a few days. Thanks for the suggestion!
John…Thanks for your input. I’m torn on the depth of field issue. I would much rather have sharp front to back on this image but I’ve printed it out as Igor suggested and I’ll see how it sits in a few days. Thanks again!
