Grand Canyonscapes

[Buddha]

I'm looking for comments on these two photos of the Grand Canyon.

[auddii]

Comments. J/K :)

I know it's a nit pick, but the horizon in the first pic isn't level, and it's not obviously "artistically" not level. I'm not a fan of the trees at the bottom right either. They aren't in the foreground enough to frame the shot, and in B&W they get kind of lost. Other than that, I love the shot.

As for the second photo, I really like it. I don't know about the "frame", but other than that I like the editing and the composition.

[Angelo]

Besides the comments already made, the first photo is too small to really appreciate the textures.
The framing on the 2nd shot takes away from the image itself. I would have just vignetted the image and left it at that.

[Buddha]

I see what you are saying about the horizon, but my camera was level and the peaks in the terrain were pointed straight up when I took the shot. The horizon is the North Rim and it is 1000" higher than the South Rim, where I was, and I was shooting from the South Rim at an angle because that was the only view I had available to me. Tilting the camera to accommodate the horizon would be worse, I think.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I see what you are saying about the horizon, but my camera was level and the peaks in the terrain were pointed straight up when I took the shot. The horizon is the North Rim and it is 1000" higher than the South Rim, where I was, and I was shooting from the South Rim at an angle because that was the only view I had available to me. Tilting the camera to accommodate the horizon would be worse, I think.

Rotate the photograph. It's easy.

[Buddha]

Rotating the image would tilt the verticals in the terrain. Is that better?

[Buddha]

I've been doing research to find a way to deal with this. Almost every internet example that I found was for a close up horizon, or of the ocean, necessarily level. All talked about leveling the camera, and making sure the verticals were vertical. None had a distant horizon as an example to talk about. So, there was no help there.
I've gone through my folder with the most recent Grand Canyon images. All have vertical verticals and a level horizon if the lens is pointed directly across the canyon, at a right angle to it. When I point downstream, the distant horizon goes up to the north, where the North Rim is higher than the South Rim. That is the case in the image I posted.
How do you handle that sort of situation?

[Angelo]

Joe, my recommendation is to leave it as is. You recorded the scene correctly from your angle of view. If you like it then leave it alone and enjoy it.
If you are ever in the area again, try to move and shoot it so that the horizon is even. Then compare and see which one you prefer.
Just a thought.

[groovyone]

I actually like the horizon on #1. The GC is tough for getting photos that are not flat, and for me that horizon line helped lead my eyes through the photo. I am trying to decide if the tree is a distraction or if it just helps keep my eyes moving throughout the shot. I also like the B&W treatment on it.

#2 is kinda cool, nice almost tintype look. I agree I would like to see it bigger.

[Buddha]

I was trying for a tintype effect with #2. I like that for some photos, but this has given me some reason to think of new ways to try the effect.
I wish they were both bigger, but I'm limited here.
The next time I am in the Grand Canyon, I'll watch the horizon more. Truth is, I was looking for depth and distance in the photo, and the horizon just didn't jump out at me because the other things were correct.

[DHaass]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I was trying for a tintype effect with #2. I like that for some photos, but this has given me some reason to think of new ways to try the effect.
I wish they were both bigger, but I'm limited here.
The next time I am in the Grand Canyon, I'll watch the horizon more. Truth is, I was looking for depth and distance in the photo, and the horizon just didn't jump out at me because the other things were correct.

Yes, there is a limit but you are not close to it in these shots. You can go as large as 900 pixels on the longest side and up to 293kb. You're only at 500 px on the longest side on both of these and 59kb & 62kb. Landscapes deserve to be seen larger and higher resolution than that to fully appreciate and critique. You can also link to a larger size elsewhere.

[Buddha]

Okay. Lets try again. These are larger. : )

[Todd Lambert]

Okay, this is going to be a bit harsh, but I mean it with good intentions..

That said, I feel like you're trying to rely on post processing to hide bad photos. The processing makes these very impressionistic, which if that what's you’re going for, that's one thing. However, I think these would be better if shot in better light, with more focus on getting vivid colors produced by better natural light.

[Buddha]

The Grand Canyon isn't a colorful place, not like Zion is. It's really pretty flat, and very contrasty. If you see color in a photo of the canyon it has been added in, but the impression you have is there, and I can see that.

[Todd Lambert]

Joe, I'm glad I didn't upset you. I really did mean what I said in good faith.

I understand the limitations of the canyon but I think shooting these in better light would do more than post processing can. It looks like these were shot about mid-day?

The heavy processing style is nice but it does severely limit the sharpness of the photos. Because of the light, I think these would have been good candidates for mono.

I think #3 is my favorites, but the vignette framing is much to thick for my tastes. It makes me feel like I have a vision problem or something. ;-)