Other World

Back in September of 1992 we booked a Wilderness Travel trip to Namibia. One of the stops on that trip was a place called Blutkoppe. Not sure of the spelling but it's pronounced blootcopy, part of the Namib-Naukluft (not sure of that spelling either) National Park. As you can see from the pic it's a pretty desolate looking place. Part of the oldest desert on Earth. That rock outcrop on the right is actually a petrified dune (that's what we were told anyway) and it's cratered. The cratering's caused by blowing sand. The wind blows constantly, picking up grains of sand. As you can see from the pic, there's nothing much to stop or slow down that wind so it moves along at a pretty good clip as do the grains of sand it's carrying. When those grains hit something solid like a petrified dune or a rock it's with enough force to cause cratering. Those dark spots on the lower part of that rock\petrified dune are actually small craters due to that cratering. The higher up you go from the desert floor the stronger the wind and the more forcefully those grains of sand hit. So forcefully in fact that over time they can carve out a pretty good size hole, as in that larger dark area a little way up on that rock\petrified dune. That's actually a small section of what for lack of a better term is a more or less barn-sized cave or grotto. The whole place has this other-worldly quality or feeling to it, and that's what I tried to capture.

 

It has a nice sense of minimalism, a weighted and alluring composition that leads me on a journey out of the frame, and the hazy direct sun and its effect on the atmosphere adds to what I find a moody, textural, and personal photo. My only complaint is the halo along the upper part of the hill. Very noticeable and impinges the simple mood. And maybe a little more detail or sense of depth could be brought out in the big crater. The tonality is mostly muted and I think that works with the content and composition of the photo.

 

[A quick google search tells me it's spelled either Blutkoppe or Blutkuppe. Another quick google search tells me your spelling of the National Park is correct.]

It has a nice sense of minimalism, a weighted and alluring composition that leads me on a journey out of the frame, and the hazy direct sun and its effect on the atmosphere adds to what I find a moody, textural, and personal photo. My only complaint is the halo along the upper part of the hill. Very noticeable and impinges the simple mood. And maybe a little more detail or sense of depth could be brought out in the big crater. The tonality is mostly muted and I think that works with the content and composition of the photo.

 

[A quick google search tells me it's spelled either Blutkoppe or Blutkuppe. Another quick google search tells me your spelling of the National Park is correct.]

 

Thank you! As for the halo, thanks for noticing it. I'll check the full (edited and unedited) versions to see if it's there too.

OK! Checked everything here's what I got. The original (unedited, color) doesn't show the halo. As for the edited versions (I did several of them). All of them have that halo in varying degrees, depending on color or grayscale, and which editing program (GIMP, PS-cc) I used. The other thing I noticed (at 100% and 100% plus zoom in) was that the halo looks like a staircase. My first thought was pixelation but the rest of the image shows no sign of that. I remember a while back reading something about "rim light" as opposed to "halo" with regards to wildlife and the two not being the same. That raises three questions for me.

1. What's the difference (if any)?

2. Does rim light (if it is different) apply to landscapes like this one as well as wildlife?

3. Would a halo display that staircase appearance I mentioned above?

I don't know about the staircase. Halos like this are often a result of oversharpening. I don't think looking at which program you used will help--you could get this in any program. I would go through the edits line by line, with the image blown up to make that area clearer, and see what step(s) produce the halo.

Thank you. Pretty sure it was the sharpening, just never saw a staircase affect. First thought was pixelating but that I'm guessing would show up in the entire image, not just the halo.

I don't need your background info. Just looking at the the image, it's IHMO a grainy. blurry B/W shot of a coastline somewhere. Why on earth would you request a critique of this photo taken almost 30 years ago?

That's not a coastline Mike, it's a desert, and a pretty dry other worldly one too.

Also, the original is in color. Pretty monotonal I admit but still color. That said, the reason

I posted the B\W version was simply because I felt it showed the starkness and other worldly quality

(or what I thought was the starkness and other worldly quality) better.

OK, I apologise for my first perhaps insensitive 'gut reaction'. But it's still the basis of a more nuanced critique, which is:

- when reviewing a photo, I first just to do this visually without being unduly influenced by the background explanation of what it is, where it taken, with what equipment, etc. story ground blurb. I try and (first) let the photo speak for itself. If the photo interests me, makes me more curious, or leaves me with unanswered questions, I read the background information more closely. Often looking up info on sites like Wikipedia too.

- full-screen (on a 17" Laptop), I can't find anything that looks in focus in this photo; I don't mean "tack-sharp", just enough to make out some detail in the foreground. I took a closer at the photo and I think the main cause of 'lack of sharpness' is due to JPEG artifacts in this digital version. This is 'good news' because you perhaps have the opportunity to significantly increase the image quality. See my tips below.

- without the background info (i.e. letting the photo speak for itself) it could - at least with this image quality level - have been taken anywhere: on a coastline/lakeshore (as I'd assumed), in a desert, at a mud-slide or even at a construction site; so from this version, I don't get the visual impression of 'other-worldliness'. In fact the scene of slopes in the foreground, something less clear in the middle distance and some hills in the background looks quite 'wordly' to me

- there are a lot of things I like in the photo: the contrasts, the intended foreground and middle-distance structure, the delineation of the curving slope against the sky and the hazy sun

- I suspect that the color version has warmth (sand, sun, sky) which gets lost in the B/W version

 

So to summarize: I think it's an interestingly framed composition which is (potentially) rich in compositional elements that could make the photo visually interesting and appealing. Unfortunately - for me - these potential qualities are overshadowed by the lack of sharpness and by the poor production quality. To discover the potential qualities, I have to deliberately 'imagine' how this photo might have looked if shot/produced with better quality

 

Tips

So, now for some tips and hopefully good news! I took a closer look at the image in Photoshop and it's pretty clear to me that the main cause of 'unsharpness/blurriness' in the image is digital. The image shows large JPEG artefacts ("blocking") that decrease the original resolution (and sharpness) significantly. Really, by a lot!

The JPEG 'blocks' are clearly visible when the image is viewed full-screen. To illustrate the effect of JPEG blocking in this image, I include some examples below. For these examples, I increased the image size to 3000 x 1668 px (a factor 4). Not to 'pixel-peep' but just to illustrate the effect of "JPEG blocking' on the image quality, especially on resolution and sharpness.

 

Vertical columns of 'blocks' are especially visible. These cut across and distort the horizontal lines in the image, making them discontinuous and essentially blurring them. The blocking also significantly decreases the resolution and sharpness of any details in the foreground. They become 'smudges'. The sky also has artefacts, though this could be due to something other than just JPEG. Anyway, improving the JPEG quality IHMO is the main thing you can do to improve the quality of this image.

 

The three main causes of low quality (highly blocked) JPEG images are IHMO:

- low quality JPEG quality when digitally scanning/saving images; it's preferable to scan at at least 300 dpi and to a 'lossless' image format like TIFF or .bmp that preserves the full scanned resolution (but results in large image files). Like saving 'RAW' files from the scanner. And work with these to produce a suitably resized and high-quality JPG file for sharing and posting. Otherwise scan at 300 dpi and save with the highest JPEG quality level (=lowest JPG compression)

- reducing the digital size too aggressively by (only) reducing the saved JPEG quality level. To reduce the file size of an image (copy) to post here (or anywhere else), it's better to strike a good balance between resizing (reducing the resolution) compressing via JPG. For example, Photoshop has 12 JPG levels (12 is the highest and best quality. For most photos, exporting a photo at level 10 or even 9 probably won't make too much difference to the 'perceived' (viewed) quality. As you go lower, the 'blocks may become more noticeable and the 'perceived resolution'' decreases. That's what I see in this image.

 

For this image, I think it's worth looking at the resolution in your originally scanned image. If this is high (low compression, no blocking visible) , then try to preserve this quality level by resizing and then saving saving a copy with a high JPEG quality level, If the JPEG quality level if your scanned image is low (high compression/blocking) - and if you have the opportunity - consider re-scanning with at least 300dpi and saving to either a lossless file format or with a high quality (low compression) JPEG file. I suspect you'll see a marked improvement!

 

I hope this is not too technical to follow. But however good the composition, contrasts, textures, etc are, I think it's important to preserve the (technical) image quality throughout the process to show off the photo at its best.

 

Best wishes,

 

Mike

 

 

 

That's not a coastline Mike, it's a desert, and a pretty dry other worldly one too.

Also, the original is in color. Pretty monotonal I admit but still color. That said, the reason

I posted the B\W version was simply because I felt it showed the starkness and other worldly quality

(or what I thought was the starkness and other worldly quality) better.

Hmmm! Gotta think about it. The full version of this image is edited to print out around 10 x 6. something on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of photo paper. At that size it actually looks ok. The scan is from a 35mm neg, probably at around 1200 or so dpi (it was while ago). I could rescan it at a higher rez (I have that capability now). I can do that because I do still have the neg someplace. I'd just have to find where someplace is. In any case the feedback I've gotten here has been helpful. In fact I've been thinking about looking for that someplace to locate some of those negatives and rescan them at higher rez's. I actually setup a separate folder specifically for that purpose. Right now though my priority is getting everything keyworded so it's easier to find. So far I've gotten from 1960 something to somewhere in 1999. Hopefully I'll get it all done before I'm planted (shrug), it keeps me busy.