After living in California most of my life,I discovered Alabama Hills for the first time in my life last week. I had one day to spend but came up with some interesting compositions. Here is the first of several. I definitely want to go back for some more. I was fortunate in that the light on the morning shoot was gentle for hours. That gave me mild shadows and gentle highlights.
Like many photographers I was fascinated by the many forms these rocks have. My initial attraction in this composition was the rock in the high center region. As I worked the composition, however, I decided to give it less importance and fit it into an overall work.
D810, 24-70 lens
I honestly tried using my 70-200 lens on this trip but really struggled. I just don’t see the world like that and found it difficult to come up with satisfactory compositions.
Let me know what you think. Please compare the comps and tell me which you like most and why (optionally).
I’ve never been to the Alabama Hills, but it sure looks like your kind of place Igor. Good title BTW, to me the formation on the left looks like an elephant sleeping on the ground. I like your processing of this scene, the rock formations have a luminous glow to them, even though the light appears to be relatively flat.
I think the arrangement of the rock formations in the composition is very well thought out, and shooting this from above was key. I particularly like how the mound in the center anchors the scene, with all the lines converging there. I’m ambivalent about including the horizon and sky in the composition. Perhaps you were trying to convey a sense of place. But with all the interesting shapes and textures in the rock formations, including the sky feels kind of out of place to me. If this were mine, I would crop the horizon away and make this image a study of the colors and textures of the formations. It would then become a “grand intimate”.
Good suggestion. I’m not getting as much traffic so perhaps this will help. Don’t know why this is happening. But this is definitely an improvement (I think. There is no definite in my photography). There was way too much sky to begin with and I kept removing it until there was hardly any left. Should have gone all the way.
I didn’t know I had a style. Well, I guess I’m going to have to surprise you with the next one then. Actually, I was and still am a huge admirer of Edward Weston. His composition of objects have, I’m sure, influenced me over the years. More so than AA. I’m actually ok with or without the sky.
A nice take from the AHs and I think @Ed_McGuirk 's crop is a huge improvement. In the original, my attention drifts up toward the sky and out of the frame, where in the cropped version, I am nicely riveted to the rock formations, their shape, color and detail.
Well, I guess I’m in the minority here, but I prefer your original image. IMHO, the original is more coherent, but removing the horizon and much of the background loses the essence of what attracted me in the first place. With the crop it became somewhat of an intimate composition but did so by accident and seems too big to be a true intimate scene. Again, just my view.
I would love to visit the Alabama Hills one day as they appear to be a magical place.
I love your title Very interesting rock shapes. At first I though I preferred the version without the sky, but after revisiting, I’m not sure. With the sky provides some context and my eye moves upward through the photo. The cropped version definitely places the emphasis on the rocks in the foreground. I guess it depends on what your goal is.
This does translate to “Alabama Hills” right away for me. In my mind, AH is more about these rocks than Lone Pine peak or Mt Whitney and the arches. I wouldn’t have known that this was from your first visit. This composition seems very personal.
As for the image, I really can see the composition either way, Igor. I think there is just enough sky in the background not to make it boring. Including the distant horizon also gives a sense of place to the image, almost a feeling of how it would look like when you boulder one of these big rocks. The tighter crop without the sky is definitely more abstract and I agree with @Ed_McGuirk’s description of it being a “grand intimate” image. I think images that can be interpreted in different ways are successful images.
The thing that immediately struck me about this image is the beautiful round form of the foreground rocks and how it is complemented by the quality of the lighting. The light has a nice softness to it while still being directional and it helps provide great depth and shape to the rock forms.
In the original crop of the image, the angle of the rocks and horizon on the upper right side of the image give me a slight feeling of tilt or uneasiness, which I think is mostly solved by the cropped version. I find the cropped version focuses my attention more on the foreground rock pile, while the full version encourages my eye to wander more toward the background of the photograph.
A very relaxing and serene photograph, while still having a lot of visual interest and lines that lead my eye through the image.
A wonderful image, Igor. It has a very intimate feel and the “soft box” sky provided you with the perfect lighting for such animate inanimate objects. As for the crop, while the sky seems fine I do prefer the 4:5 crop. I guess Alister Benn has ruined me for long vertical crops.
You did have gorgeous light. It was enough to highlight the shapes, but not overwhelming. Both crops are lovely, depending on what you want to emphasize. With your title, I feel the second, more intimate crop tells that story better. This is one of the best photos I’ve seen from AH. Definitely a different look.
Thank you for the kind words, Bonnie. I have seen images of this area in the past and was prepared to shoot with Mt Whitney in the background. I even planned to look for the arch I see so often. But none of that looked compelling once I saw the place. I just did my thing.
Igor, this is a delicious portrayal of Alabama Hills and a reflection of your sensitivities. It has generated a fine conversation. I have come to appreciate your nuanced approach, but I see the opportunity to add a bit more color or contrast.
Kudos first of all for this take away from AHs on your first visit. I don’t know why I think of this, but I see this as somewhat unique in that for me, this looks like a north/south view/orientation - where most views are east/west views. That probably has little to no bearing on the image, but an observation that popped up.
I like both presentations very much - and for different reasons. You wider view original is of course more of a classic landscape image - near, mid and background. I love the colors/tones as they are rich - which give a better memory than I have of the area more drab and monotone. But as I think Bonnie pointed out, the light here is perfect and beautiful
This image does more to feature location, the environs and context, less about the geologic story (although clearly the story here still.) The ONLY nitpick I have is the mountain range in the ULC. It just seems in-congruent to the overall presentation. Minor detail, but thought I would mention.
The cropped version of course is a more direct story, presentation on geology of the region, with the foreground outcropping becoming the main story. The rocks as you go deeper in to the scene provided context, etc. Colors just as beautiful and just as important in this version.
I probably prefer the more intimate version with the original just having the one noted mention of the inclusion of the mountain peaks UL.
This was indeed taken facing north, that is parallel to the mountain chain. I kept looking at the Sierras but found no interesting compositions. When I stepped out of the camper at 6am they were magnificent. Then the tops started to look pink and I liked that less. And then later the granite looked virtually white and was even less appealing. The light flat looking west in the morning and the rocks looked lifeless looking east.
The mountain range could be removed I suppose. I agree with your observation now that you bring it up. I was so concerned how to cut into the cliffs in the urc that I overlooked the ulc. I think that urc should be blue sky all the way across.
I knew as soon as I saw Ed’s crop that that was the right one. The foreground is just too dominant to lead you into the distance. In fact, the image is largely about those rocks with the background playing a supporting role. And that blue does take your attention away due to the color contrast with the rest.
I feel that most of you agree on that, even though there are arguments for the original image as well. The original needs more work to reach it’s potential.
Funny, but not surprising at all how we all see things differently. 100% truth, not once did I ever look at or consider the URC. But now that you mentioned it, I agree, sky across the entire top would be better - and in fact, may even mitigate my concern with the mountain tops UL. In the end, I’m not sure they’re even worth cloning out out. Adding sky above UR is just as problematic and removing mountain tops. Heck, I wouldn’t change anything…
Very interesting rock shapes. At first I though I preferred the version without the sky, but after revisiting, I’m not sure. With the sky provides some context and my eye moves upward through the photo. The cropped version definitely places the emphasis on the rocks in the foreground. I guess it depends on what your goal is.
