Reflections in Time

PLEASE VIEW LARGER FOR MORE DETAIL

 

Here's another interpretation of AZ's famous slot canyons. Upon

special request, (this one's for you Christoph), I have posted a

vertical landscape version of last night's "Elements in

Time" ...please let me know which one you like better. Thanks so much

for looking! Kristy :)

This image is one of the best I've ever seen from the Antelope canyon area. Absolutely wonderful. 7/7!

Excellent...7/7. Great tones and compostion.

Beautiful light and colours.

Great photo and use of light. Colours and textures work well together as well as the relfection to top it off. Well done.

Excellent! I especially like the unusual rim of light.

Kristy,

First of all both shots are incredible with the vertical edging the two. My question is what time of year we're you there and how cold was the water?

Great job, good eye. Congrats Kristy ...

Edward, Scott, Dale, Stuart, Karen, Zeph, & Roman- THANK YOU all for commenting on this image! I can't tell you how much it means that you took the time to do that. All of your warm wishes are truly appreciated.

 

Karen, the "lighted rim" there that you liked, well I was a little worried about it being too blown out, but somehow I think I was lucky and it came out alright. It's tough not to be drawn to the light in those canyons and not want to try to include it in your photos...it's soooo tempting, and I've been guilty of trying. But more often than not, if you do, they'll be blown out.

 

And Zeph, it was mid to late summer (Aug) when we visited. There had been a huge rainstorm a few days before we arrived where they had to close down the Lower part. The guides were telling us how they were going to have to throw sand down into the crevices to try to soak up the water until most of it receded. However, when we did get to go, they were really cool about letting us go as far as we wanted back down the path (because the weather was sunny and there wasn't any more rain in the forecast-which was the only reason why they opened it up, and the ONLY way we would have gone inside!). This was as far as we could go and still hug/brace on the walls, scramble onto rocks, and wade by! And yes, it was cold, but I was lucky enough to have a part of the rockwall to brace on for this shot! A few days after that, we were able to go further down the trail to the little archway I like to call "the Cave," and just beyond that area, the water was still waste deep and we were like, "Nope!" The original waterline on the canyon walls had to be at least 15-20ft high and I know my boyfriend still has red mud on his tripod to this day from that trip! ;)

 

 

This is clearly one of the best Antelope canyon photos I've ever seen. I love the reflections and the quality of light. Just a great photo.

Sorry I took so long to comment on this. This is one beautiful photograph! I love the reflections, colors and the composition Rocks. Add to this your incrediable presentation this is 7/7 across the board. Way to go...RAY

Thank you for commenting on this image. I really appreciate your warm, kind words so much! Take care, Kristy :)

Another masterpiece! Your exposures are excellent and the processing couldn't be better. Kudos, Kristy!

OUTSTANDING!!! A scene we have seen many times...but none like this. WOW!!

Kristy,

 

I don't know what's more creative your story or the shot, but nice try. Sorry, I'm going to call you out on this one. I've been through and shot this canyon several times. So the first point is the depth of the water - that rock poking up is about head high from the floor, and continuing downstream in the canyon the floor does not rise this high again. In fact it drops off to a lower level just a short ways down. Second is your point of view. Given that the water is about chin level, you can't get this much reflection from standing on the floor. You have to be well elevated above the waterline to get this shot and the walls aren't that tight to shimmy against in this area, not to mention doing so while soaking wet and from being mostly underwater (woof!!). Also, the rock on the left is spaced from the wall so from this high of an angle you should see water wrap around behind it with a higher apparent waterline on the back wall. Third, where's all the junk floating on top of the water. Several days after the rain, all kinds of dirt and debris would be floating on this "puddle". And, these canyons normally require rather long exposures, which means that "crisp" rippled reflections are not likely, such as exists under the rock and on the far wall.

 

Ahh, such conditions are rare that photographers dream about them. We all wish we could have been there in such conditions, but I still contend this isn't real!! Sorry.

 

John

I agree with John.

 

And, the dead giveaway here is the ripple effect, not possible with a longer (more than 1/2 second), which is necessary in this situation.

 

Mike

Kristy,

 

I hope for your sake that John and Michael are wrong but I have to say that I'm kind of buying their story. It does look as though this photo is a digital composite (fake when it's not posted as such). So, is this digital or film? If digital, you can put this to bed by showing the RAW file. It's all up to you, I recommend that you come clean or prove them wrong.

 

Jerry Greer

You should have just admitted upfront that it was a digital creation, rather than make up a BS story. Now, despite any amount of nice pictures, respect for your work has gone out the proverbial window.

 

Come on, Guys. I know you're all smarter than this. It took me about 2seconds to deconstruct this. As soon as I saw the vertical, I prettymuch knew 98% it was an effect filter. Then when I saw the horiz.version in the portfolio, I was about 1000% certain it was fake. Lookat the water level at where the diagonal reflection in the rock bandoccurs in the Horiz. In the vertical - the same relection line is waybelow where it is in the Horiz. So how'd the water level drop so fast,and not leave any sign of WET ROCK???? Even if the water was reallythere, from wind, kids tossing rocks, people touching, or evenevaporation, you would see some line of wet rock where water meets thewall. Ain't there. Foto is fake.

 

Further proof can be had looking at the sunlit dust cloud in the light beam. They are exactly the same, and in order for that to happen, all of the dust particles would have needed to remain suspended in time and space, while either recomposing or waiting for the water level to change.

 

You're lying about the origin of this photo just makes it worse for all of us other photographers that work hard to capture REAL moments of natural beauty.

 

An example of real water against sandstone.

Hello to all....wow, I never could have guessed that an image could stir up so much emotion (Crabbe). Well, let me put everyone's fears, hopes and dreams to rest. Read on.

 

John, Michael and Jerry, I appreciate the expert attention you have paid this photo, everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, and like anywhere else, it is welcome here.

 

First of all, let me say that NONE of my "creative story" is BS. We had a wonderful time exploring the canyon after some summer storms last year and there was standing water in the canyon. In fact in places it was waist-deep and we were only guided to the edge of that. The guides even joked with us about how we could go further if we wanted. We did wade through some areas, and we did have to slide pass areas, jump across rocks and shimmy next to the wall to avoid water in many areas down the path. Believe it or not, that was the case.

 

Now, I can certainly understand your skepticism here so allow me to let you in on a few things. One thing that you should know about me that I am able to tell you is that I am a brand new photographer with about a year's worth of experience....but you wouldn't know that because I never put that info in a BIO on my homepage. (Oh no, another newbie glitch... I'm expecting thrown stones now!)

 

Anyway, I purchased my first camera in 2005 that pretty much stayed in my closet and was pulled out once or twice a year, nothing serious. Then actually a year ago this month, I became seriously ill and had to take a leave from my job. When I was able to go outside, I found an escape in photography. We went on that trip to get away and to get back into nature to get away from stress.

 

During my downtime, I had the opportunity to try to learn PS and try to experience different takes on images. As anyone knows, there is so much to learn here in the arena of post processing and about photography in general. If anyone here (especially the last few gentlemen above) wants to look at the rest of my gallery, have at it....what you'll find is an array of newbie LEARNING and nothing more. You'll see my first waterfall picture that has a great deal of cyan to it, you'll also see some oversaturated pictures, and you'll even see a horizontal version of the very image above...and yes, with the rock removed from the picture! You know why??? Because I was learning new techniques, and wanted to see what folks thought. That's it, no deception there! I thought that's why we were here at PN to learn from each other what works and what doesn't.

 

Jerry, I appreciate your benefit of the doubt, but I don't have to provide you with a RAW file because this is a REAL picture of Lower Antelope Canyon with a REAL flood filter on the bottom of the picture. The only thing I am guilty of here is being so new that I didn't know how to categorize pictures better and to make sure I had a neon sign on it. And even after this shot was posted, I think I only posted 3-4 additional pics after that, because I felt I needed much more practice with the camera in order to capture that "REAL beauty" Crabbe was talking about. this image actually inspired me to try harder to achieve that, and I have been putting more effort into capturing better images mostly because of this site in general and from a TRUE desire to learn.

 

With all that being said, I also want to note my utter disappointment in being judged and being treated so rudely by certain individuals here. I am very offended by Mr. Crabbe's statement in particular implying that "I lied about the origin of this photo." I did no such thing! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and joy can be found in many places and who is to say that YOUR vision of beauty is the only vision there is to consider, 'real' or otherwise? And what happened to just asking someone politely about their work instead of calling them names and demeaning them? I will be happy to enlighten anyone who asks me how I arrived at an endpoint of an image...albeit, anyone who asks politely.

 

I don't usually feel the need to explain myself or my actions to anyone, and in fact, I didn't even know these comments were here. My subscription ran out on the 16th of this month and I hadn't renewed it due to financial reasons (from being ill). I was checking to see if the page still existed and found the comments. I felt I needed to defend not only myself here, but all the 'newbies' out there who may not know that they HAD to divulge whether or not their image was completely objective. I tried to recreate a seldom seen "feeling of being" in a place so well documented. I've seen plenty of other images of this place that were not the exact representation, but it was a recreated feeling of place.

 

One thing I will say, is that this has been a learning experience for me, and these recent comments have affected me deeply on a personal level, and not in a good way. I hope this puts any questions about this image or the horizontal version of this image to rest. However, I hope others will continue to enjoy them for the creative forms they have taken.

Kristy:

 

Please forgive me if I came off too harsh. I'm not sure why this got under my skin the way it did. Perhaps it is because your photos are so nice. I read all the compliments, and your description, and not once anywhere, did you mention that you used a filter to create an effect. You led people via your response, or lack there of, that this was a "real" found scene, i.e. all of these elements were as there at the time you took the photo. You never indicated the water was added. This is exactly what causes people to think that something looks too good to be true, therefore it can't be true.

 

Why when you started receiving a flood (pun) of compliments, didn't you mention anywhere that it was flood filter? From the comments, most certainly seem to believe that this was a real "found" scene. By the way, what is a REAL flood filter? is there a FAKE flood filter we should be aware of?

 

Anyway, my apologies again if I was to harsh on you. The digital era has brought about a slew of new ethical concerns and considerations related to nature and landscape photography, and I guess the lack of clear disclosure on your part seemed like a slap in the face of those ethical considerations.

 

Perhaps we'll both take away a lesson from this.

Well Gary, I have definitely learned a lesson or two since Feb/Mar of this past year about this hobby/interest, and a lot about some of the photographers in it. That's for certain! What I know about this incidence is that (at that time) I barely had six months of inexperienced shooting under my belt with just enough new PS info to be considered 'dangerous' to someone like you who must shoot for compensation. But I've already stated that.

 

The lesson I hope you'll take away from this is to NOT have a knee-jerk reaction and fly off the handle in the future when you see something you don't like or understand fully, and to just ASK someone about their methods before trying to purposefully ruin their name before you are certain of what you are talking about. All you had to do was ask me or contact me with your questions--but you didn't. You didn't even try?!? Instead, you chose the 'low road' of trying to smear my name and images across your website blog, only to try to bolster your own reputation without gathering all of the facts first. So you want to discuss ethics, you tell me what is ethical about that? Besides, I would have gladly told you how these images were achieved.

 

And, if you think that "my photos are so nice," it's VERY difficult for me to tell that from this vantage point. However, from yours, I now can see how you might think someone was trying to pull the wool over your eyes. But, if you had even taken one second to read what I wrote, you would have seen that I called it "MY INTERPRETATION" of a well photographed place. And, under the "manipulated?" section it says "yes" if there is no other info inputted there. Plus, I also mentioned in the other version (horizontal) in reference to another photographer who commented on it, that I too expressed interest in his creative interpretation where the image was upside down. And finally, I made an effort to say that I was a beginner and if someone wanted to know something and if I could help explain it, I would! So what gives???

 

In fact, what you don't realize is that these two images started off in a conversation about being a comparison between the two images from a creative viewpoint by using the filters, but that conversation was not put into "typeface" here....in retrospect now, I guess it should have been. And when people started saying "nice job," for me, it was in reference to the creativity of my interpretation!

 

What I experienced on that trip was factual but I can see how it could have been misconstrued from your point of view, which was not my intention at all. In fact, if you look through the dates on my responses, I simply answered the questions being asked at the time and it took me nearly a month or more (most of the time) to respond because I was not able to spend as much time on PN due to personal reasons....NOT because I was trying to purposefully avoid telling folks about a very poor job of filter use.

 

Now, if I had submitted these images for publication in a magazine, for example, and not disclosed how the shot was taken/made, and expected to be paid for it and for it to be interpreted as a 'natural scene', then I could see how you would have a gripe with me. (I DO understand that point of view.) But this was a place (PN) where I thought I could be creative among a few "friends" --what works, and what doesn't. Obviously, this doesn't work for you---and truth be known---it doesn't work for me either now that I have grown a little in this hobby. That's one reason why I haven't posted much since March, because I've been on a quest for more naturalistic images, when my health has allowed me to get outside and shoot a little. In fact, I am agreeing with your point of view on this matter in the digital age.

 

You can be sure that after this, I will state EXACTLY how the shot was taken/made on any other posts here if I can afford to renew my membership. (At the moment, I have a bad taste in my mouth as you might guess, and not really sure I want to.) In fact, what I find so crazy about all of this, is out of the millions of photographs here on PN, and with less than two dozen images in my folio, how any of my work was noticed at all!!! And for what?---a filter effect that's not even that good! Do you see how utterly ridiculous this is to me? But trust me when I say, I can see how important it is to you, Gary.

 

So, now you know the score, and if you are a man of your word, and you truly are apologetic "for being harsh," you will remove any reference of me and/or my images from your website blog article immediately! It's fine if you want to have your opinion here where I can have a chance to defend myself from misinterpretations. And, it's fine if you want to write about any subject you choose on your own site by using one of your own pics to manipulate it any way you see fit for illustrative purposes in order to discuss your topic. But it is NOT OK for what you are doing at my expense to gain more readers to your site. If I ever wanted to pursue trying to do this on a more professional scale (for pay) later on, you are causing me a tremendous amount of harm now and what you are doing is defamation of character....of a 'newbie' with a camera trying to experiment and learn! I, for one, and I'm sure others too, would have appreciated all your efforts and attention more in the form of a mentor here instead.

 

 

fair enough...

Kristy, please reread my post, I stated that you could put it to bed if you provided a RAW file showing that the image was real and not a composite. I stated that it was up to you and that I recommended it. I didn't demand that you provide me with anything. Now, if I were publishing a book containing your photography then, yes, I would request that the image be labled as a composite if it was just that.

 

 

Fabulous image!