Zabriskie Point-5053a

This is from our trip last March to Death Valley, California. The image is stitched together from a couple of separate exposures. I also have a B&W version of this. Your thoughts and comments are always sincerely appreciated.

Thank you, Sandy! Just for giggles and comparison, here's a small version of the B&W option:

I think the color version is excellent.

There is much texture and color variations in the foremost area of the photo, somewhat less in the midrange rocks, and less in the distance. The color variations in the fore-, mid- and distance areas are appealing to me. I guess I just find the intricate details of the rocks very interesting. It really holds my interest, more so than a lot of other photos I've seen on photo.net (and elsewhere) recently. Two thumbs up.

you did request critique

Wayne, yes, I did! Thank you for your input. It does add a different perspective. FWIW, The progression from extreme detail in the foreground to less detail in the mid-distance, and finally to a very atmospheric level of detail on the far horizon is an accurate representation of the scene as I experienced it. The extreme desert sunlight combined with the sharply cut desert topography and geology combine to create high-contrast, razor-sharp edges and contours, and glare off flat surfaces. I played with several versions in PP and this is the most correct to my first-person visual experience, which is how I like my landscapes to be.

As both Ludmilla and Vincent note, this is a very, very complex scene, which comes with both positives and negatives from a perceptual standpoint. In this case, my experience of the scene was dominated by three things: the extraordinary mix of colors, the sharply rendered desert details, and the impact of the ridges and valleys receding into the distance. This image is my attempt to capture and convey those features. It sounds like I may have succeeded, even if some find the result less successful than do others (which will always be the case, no?).

Sandy, Vincent, and Ruslan, thank you, sincerely, for your feedback and kind words. I'm equally grateful for Wayne's and Ludmilla's comments. Any other points of view will be appreciated, as I try to refine my eye, techniques, and presentation.

this is the most correct to my first-person visual experience, which is how I like my landscapes to be.

It looks correct and accurate.

At the risk of being a 'Debbie Downer', the background dilutes the interest found in the forms and textures of the rest. Scrolling the top (background) out does not work either, leaving awkward lines. In addition, the brightest rocks in the foreground present a 'glare' that keeps me from seeing into the whole. I accept that my negativity may not be constructive, and I apologise (well, you did request critique...) for that, but I think a different viewpoint is in order.

Wayne, this is exactly what we're looking for AND I agree with you, mostly. No one is "right" or "wrong" here. We want your unfiltered response.

I find myself worrying too much about the distant mountains and their blue tint, while the foreground rocks and lave-flow are very interesting to me. I'd crop just above the brownish/tan formations, where we see the old lave-flow. The "glare" doesn't bother me at all, but it wouldn't bother me if the Highlights were pulled down maybe half a stop.

David, great shot.

I like this shot! It really is otherworldly.

The juxtaposition of color, temperature, and texture in the fore and mid ground is enough for me however; the hazy mountains in the background, I find distracting, although I feel they do open up the perspective, contextually. I like the color version, and like the B&W as well- the B&W version looks like a moonscape, where the color brings us back to earth.

Shots of this nature (pun intended!) always make me wonder about the scale of it all. While a man made object of any sort would completely change the the image into something else, it would at least provide a sense of scale. Best left as-is, the scale is in the imagination of the beholder. Well done, sir.

As an aside: I guess atmospheric conditions are the bane of the landscape photographer, especially when traveling - one doesn't necessarily have days to hang out waiting for a clear day!

Here's an alternative crop and PP in response to the comments from several, including Wayne and Dave S. I like it, too, but it does not capture the enormity of the in-situ experience (as if any photo could!), nor the harsh, stark reality of the desert light. I've cropped to a 1:1 format, removing the far horizon/sky/mountain ridge, and I used an oval graduated filter to bring down the highlights in the foreground dry wash. I'll grant that this is likely as valid a presentation as the other, but the original is more true to my first person experience. I really appreciate all the great comments, which exactly illustrate the purpose of this forum.

OK, so I processed the two versions on two different computers with different screens, neither of which is calibrated. It looks like the square version is actually brighter than the original, as it came up on PNet. Oh, well...

David, this perfectly illustrates why we need to calibrate our monitors, at least the one that we use for all our post-processing. We call it "color calibration", but "exposure value" or "EV calibration" is just as important, or more so. The default setting on most monitors is designed to look good in a showroom, with other monitors side-by-side. This is often (usually?) too bright for image processing. I see this resulting in final images where the EV is too low. I'll tell a friend, "Your image was great, but it looked almost a stop under-exposed" and they'll respond, "It looks great on my monitor." You know the next question from me is, "Is your monitor calibrated?" and the answers is ALWAYS, "No."

I think it's far more common for the EV to need adjustment than the color to need fine tuning.

Here's an alternative crop and PP in response to the comments from several, including Wayne and Dave S. I like it, too, but it does not capture the enormity of the in-situ experience (as if any photo could!), nor the harsh, stark reality of the desert light. I've cropped to a 1:1 format, removing the far horizon/sky/mountain ridge, and I used an oval graduated filter to bring down the highlights in the foreground dry wash. I'll grant that this is likely as valid a presentation as the other, but the original is more true to my first person experience. I really appreciate all the great comments, which exactly illustrate the purpose of this forum.

I love this. Thanks for doing it.

I understand those that want to see the vastness and barrenness of the valley, but I think that this foreground is TOO STRONG for such an image. To express that vastness, I'd go higher up on this formation, not include the lava flow and let the foreground be 1/3d or less of the total image.

I like it, too, but it does not capture the enormity of the in-situ experience (as if any photo could!), nor the harsh, stark reality of the desert light.

Very much depends on what you want out of the photo and the role accuracy plays for you. I notice the square crop adds an intriguing element of abstraction in the background. The lake and the background mountain are now less prominent but differently and ambiguously (in a good way, to me) expressive as they have become less of what they are in fact but perhaps more of what they can be when transformed by photography. I'm not necessarily advocating for either crop as much as recognizing the merits of the square crop.

On another note, I think the complexity and strength of the foreground makes the photo. It's energetic, not relaxing, and does require some work, all of which I like in a photo.

I think the complexity and strength of the foreground makes the photo.

This was my point, exactly, as I evaluated images for processing and printing. I'm still wrestling with the original crop versus the square crop that Dave likes. As of this moment I think both are valid and interesting presentations, though I'm certain my predilection for the original is heavily influenced by my personal experience in-situ. It may well be that the "element of abstraction" that Sam mentions is more engaging to those who are coming to this vista for the first time through my image, while those who know the place might be more engaged by the full image. It's an interesting concept to consider. Thanks to everyone for the very interesting feedback!

It may well be that the "element of abstraction" that Sam mentions is more engaging to those who are coming to this vista for the first time through my image, while those who know the place might be more engaged by the full image. It's an interesting concept to consider. Thanks to everyone for the very interesting feedback!

Again, you should go with your gut on the crop, or keep both and use the different crops in different situations if that suits you.

For me personally, I don't think knowing the place would influence my response to a photo, as I view a photo, even of a place I've been to, to be a photo, not necessarily a representation of the place I know, unless of course it's a vacation snapshot or a travel magazine photo. I think you're probably right about how a lot of non-photographers might look at the photo and, if they've visited the place they might expect a photo to represent what they remember of it. Then again, even some non-photographers I know love it when they see a photo that transforms a place they know well. It can be exciting for people to see something very different through the eye of a photographer.

I don't think knowing the place would influence my response to a photo, as I view a photo, even of a place I've been to

Excellent and engaging images of places I've been frequently leave me in wonder that I had never quite seen that place in that way, while images of places I've never been create memories of those places that are not really my own, but an extension of the photographer's vision. For example, I've never visited Cairo, the Egyptian Pyramids, or the Nile River Valley, yet I found JDM's image in this week's landscape forum so evocative that "I could almost hear the call of the muezzin." I wonder if my personal experience of the Cairo area, when it finally comes, will even vaguely approximate the cumulative experience I've gained through various media, including movies and photographs?

One of the exciting things about Zabriskie Point is that it holds a wealth of possibilities for interpretation, and each interpretation lends itself to a different strategy for framing, exposure, and post-processing. I really like the one that David has selected.

I particularly like the blue mountains in the background for two reasons: (1) they provide a graceful continuation for the line that my eye traces through the image—for me, they are an important element in balancing the composition; and (2) the cool blue strongly enhances the warmer tones in the foreground by providing a contrasting point of reference—the foreground colors are more vivid because the blue is present.

On seeing the image, my eye first goes to the strong darks in the mid-ground ridge, then follows the ridge line up to the left, shifts to the nearest of the distant ridges, follows it to the right, slides down the edge of the frame to the playa, follows it to the light mid-ground ridge on the right, and slides down that to the wash, finally following the wash out of the frame at the lower left corner. What’s important here is that the composition leads me throughout the image in a very engaging way.

A few details for consideration:

1. I think there’s a very slight tilt to the right, judging from the playa shore (the only reason I notice this is that all of my images tilt)
   
2. Does one of the images available for stitching include a bit more foreground? If it’s possible, I think it might be useful to extend the bottom of the frame another 10% (or less) in order to let the wash enter the frame above the lower left corner. The reason for this is that when the diagonal hits the corner, it provides a full-stop to my eye path—combined with the edges of the frame, it’s an arrow pointing to the lower left. If the line hit the left edge above the corner, my eye would be more likely to track up the left edge and reenter the frame along one of the light mid-ground ridges, engaging for another round of exploration.
   
3. The other possible advantage to extending the extreme foreground slightly is that the warm tones there are a perfect counterpoint to the distant blues, and extending the bottom of the frame would also set the foreground up as a subtle reflection of the shape of the blue ridges. This might reduce the overall complexity of the image by the compositional trick of sandwiching the complex mid-ground between a calmer foreground and background (and that would have the interesting side-effect of shifting my eye's point of entry to the frame to the farthest visible portion of the wash, which would then be near the center of the frame)
   
4. It might be interesting to experiment with enhancing the contrast between the distant background ridges by lightening the farthest ones—that would reinforce the eye-path there.
   

I like the slight gradient in the sky—hazy skies are difficult to deal with, and this one works very well.

Overall, it’s a beautiful image, and I thoroughly enjoyed exploring it.

images of places I've been frequently leave me in wonder that I had never quite seen that place in that way

YES! I learn so much from seeing others' interpretations of places I know!

Leslie, thank you so much for your very detailed evaluation. It gives me several ideas to improve and/develop this image. To your points:

1. There may well be tilt, as I'm usually a wee bit off. However, even if there is not an actual tilt, the land forms on the far side of the playa may very well give that appearance. Making a tiny correction regardless the true cause is worth considering.

2. I'm doubtful about having a deeper foreground available, but I will check. The slope immediately below the viewpoint was not terribly attractive due to heavy foot traffic. It might be that, lacking more foreground, I could achieve a similar effect by moving the bottom edge up until the wash intersects only the bottom of the frame? I'm not terribly dissatisfied with it as is in any case.

3. Again, this only works if I can pull a deeper foreground out of the original image(s).

4. Per your suggestion I tried this in LR5 using an oval graduated filter contrast and exposure adjustments. I can pull down the furthest ridge to be obviously more atmospheric than the next nearer ridge, but this further loses the snowy peak effect. I'm not sure the trade off is worth it, but it's worth experimenting with further. As expected the original RAW image was quiet flat and washed out, so what we're seeing in my print are adjustments to bring out the textures and add depth. (After having played with this I'm prepared to go with Leslie's suggestion.)

One of the issues I wrestle with is whether or not I want the far mountains to be less blue and more mountain-colored. As they are they lend depth and scale to the image, and allow a useful transition to the hazy sky, but they are not particularly engaging. They do add negative space that is something other than sky. I suspect that having them be much more detailed would detract from the overall effect, in that they would begin to compete too much with the mid and foreground elements. Again, thank you to everyone for the input!

I somehow prefer the cropped color version more. Sky, along with layers of mountains emphasize the horizontal lines a bit more, diminishing the impact of the terrain below, but thats just me speaking subjectively. I have been to this place two times so far, and including the sky works a bit easier after sunset when the crimson and oranges come up in the sky, and are reflected from the rocks below.

I wonder if you have seen the movie 'Zabriskie Point' by Michelangelo Antonioni. I saw it while in college and it might be interesting to see how he filmed the landscape in the context of two lovers wandering within it.

One more thing: In my opinion, two important features in your landscape are 1) the neat profile of the dried up river valley with the nice curve, 2) the mist in the foreground of the mountain. Both of these can be highlighted in the black and white version to give a modified perspective to the viewer. The texture of the terrain can be emphasized during RAW processing in LightRoom by adjusting the clarity slider, for instance. Another useful adjustment is local contrast which can bring out features.

I’m still left thinking about: what is the difference between a place and the picture of a place? And what possibilities are there when beauty becomes secondary or even less of a concern than any number of other states a photo can achieve?

I’m reminded of the fact that the U.S.’s Monument Valley was used in two films in the same year decades ago to suggest very different things—Once Upon A Time In The West and 2001: A Space Odyssey. Of course, John Ford’s westerns may have held the record. Beauty would be a mere starting point for what the landscape offered these filmmakers.

Again, though, entirely up to every photographer how they want to approach photos and landscapes and the street or a still life, for that matter. And getting the horizon straight, the most “perfect” compositional balance, and the color contrasts that either feel most reminiscent of the place or accomplish the most simplicity is certainly a way to go.

Other approaches are also available. I’m sure a lot of people don’t like Robert Adams, every reason to try harder, in my opinion. And his is not the only way, of course. The New Topographics tried to get rid of beauty, emotion, and style all at once in dealing more with urban landscapes though still having an effect on many genres of photography. What was probably more important than any other specifics was a turning away from an Ansel-Adams based aesthetic to a more critical approach to land.

I actually think that viewing the capturing or mirroring or representing of the breathtaking-ness of landscapes is one of the more boring aspects of perusing galleries and the Internet. There’s often an almost strange sterility and stuntedness to the exercise. Landscapes can be an opportunity for irony, history, sociology, psychology, economics, exploration, scale, abstraction, humanity. And yet so often it’s reduced to a technically and visually much better picture postcard than what I can find in a souvenir shop.

I’m still left thinking about: what is the difference between a place and the picture of a place? And what possibilities are there when beauty becomes secondary or even less of a concern than any number of other states a photo can achieve?...

 

I actually think that viewing the capturing or mirroring or representing of the breathtaking-ness of landscapes is one of the more boring aspects of perusing galleries and the Internet. There’s often an almost strange sterility and stuntedness to the exercise. Landscapes can be an opportunity for irony, history, sociology, psychology, economics, exploration, scale, abstraction, humanity. And yet so often it’s reduced to a technically and visually much better picture postcard than what I can find in a souvenir shop.

My photography specialties are wildlife/nature, travel and landscapes, pretty much in that order. Particularly with wildlife and landscapes, I marvel at the details that I see in my images that I can't see with my naked eye. Looking at a plain, brown sparrow, up close, I wonder at the wide variety of feather shapes and colors, suddenly seeing one of God's creations clothed in a glorious robe. People visiting my office see a 50" print of the Grand Canyon, taken from a common perspective, but with snow and they look at it overall and talk about how wonderful it is AND THEN they move their eyes very close and start to examine little details and comment, "I took this path in 1976" and they are amazed.

Although not my forte', I understand what you're drawn to. Shouldn't the "artist" be doing something more than lavishly and gloriously documenting reality? One of my best friends was a "realist" artist (winner of a duck-stamp contest and an Audubon-like painter), yet he never was comfortable that he couldn't be a "real artist". He would try occasionally, but the art always seemed contrived to him and he'd destroy those pieces. He didn't live with those images in his head, bursting at the seams to get out. What he lived with constantly was the same thing that I enjoy, reproducing exquisite realistic detail, that others had failed to see.

I know that you're not dissing landscape photography, but expressing what you personally look for and how you react in galleries. That's who you are. The ideas bursting to get out of your head are different from those bursting to get out of mine. We're human and, thankfully, we don't all thing the same.