@Alex_Noriega’s recent article on intimate landscapes prompted me to post this image I took about 2 weeks ago. This is an area in the desert where I collect rocks for my garden. It’s also a place that has been good to me in terms of photography. I have posted several at NPN that were taken within a few hundred yards of this rock.
But on this particular morning I wasn’t seeing anything that inspired me. So I looked down. I scrambled with my flip flops looking at the contours and textures of numerous rocks until I settled on this one. And after I saw it I had a ‘heck’ of a time getting the tripod adjusted just right to get the proper angle at the proper height to get what I wanted. It seemed as though if I moved the tripod just a few inches in either direction I wasn’t satisfied.
Anyway, this is one of those images which, to my mind, invites your imagination to take off.
D810, Tamron 24-70@56mm, iso 64, f/16, 1/6 secs, tripod, TK sharpening
Igor, the image is processed very well. The detail in the varying elevations of the rock formation lend to my thoughts on that processing. Not always easy to bring that type of undulating surface detail out as you’ve done so well here…
Igor,
I’m really enjoying this, especially the colors, texture and that you’ve included just enough of the “ground” - actually right on the border of wanting more of that, or none at all.
Which raises an interesting point since you referenced the intimate landscapes and engaging the imagination. I mean this in a constructive way, but I think my imagination would be more engaged if the clay soil/dirt was excluded. To me, it provides both context and scale for the great color, texture and patterns displayed in the rock. The little sprout of a weed/grass gives this a hint of scale, and the ground, context.
I do love this as presented. Just suggesting an alternate view, some alternate crop that “excludes” the bottom. Just a thought. Either way, an engaging image and you must know I’m a sucker for rocks… 
Lon
Lon expressed exactly what I was about to write. I would prefer the bottom cropped to eliminate the sense of scale, and for me it distracts from the subject.
[quote=“Lon_Overacker, post:3, topic:5011”] I
think my imagination would be more engaged if the clay soil/dirt was excluded.
[/quote]
I expected this suggestion and am not surprised. I suspect others will make the same suggestion.
I experimented with that while making the composition. I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other. This was meant to be an intimate not an abstract. I’m really not good at abstracts so I avoid them. Yet this image really comes closer to being an abstract than an intimate. So, perhaps you’re right - I should go all the way.
The real reason I kept that small strip IS because of a sense of scale. What appears to be The face of a huge boulder or even mountains is revealed as a small rock by the presence of grass. It’s meant to surprise you and make you look twice. At least that’s how I see it.
Fair enough Igor. I see it that way also. My only point of reference really was the article and the concept of “excluding” elements. And I’m not sure the image overall would be improved without the ground, just different.
This is a really nice intimate and even abstract image. I read the discussion above about the foreground. I like the foreground but it bothers my mind that the middle rock in it is cut off. I would prefer a bit more or with the foreground cropped out. This strikes me as a tweener. Not an image killer by any stretch though, still looks good as presented.
