Desert Evening

Mike,

I assume this is the "other shot" you were describing. I think you have a point that recognizable objects draw more attention (and, frankly, higher "ratings"), but if you believe that nature photography means something more than "ratings," the exercise of tackling new approaches and new subjects is worth the effort.

Allow me a few comments on this shot. I don't think it's only the lack of a recognizable subject that has failed to solicit any comments. Here, I think it is the lack of a dominant subject. The lighting is beautiful and the overlapping rock textures interesting, but, although the picture contains these elements, it doesn't highlight any one of them. Similarly, the foreground adds depth, but no punch, as the rocks are cropped and uninteresting. I also think the shadow just above the foreground rocks is too wide (and consequently distracting). I would be interested too see a shot taken at a lower angle, which would move the foreground rocks closer in the composition to the lines of rocks in the background.

One of the gurus of this type of shot (and one who, incidentally, has made a lot of money shooting Delicate Arch) is David Muench. To see what I'm talking about in terms of foregrounds, take a look at some of his work (you probably already have). Without fail, he'll put something interesting in the foreground--even if its only a rock, a bush, a flower, a crevice. The foreground here, however, isn't enough interesting enough to lead the eye and winds up simply competing with other elements for attention.

Just my two cents. I'm sure others would disagree with me.

Best regards, and happy shooting,

Tim Hawkes

Tim,

Thanks for the comments. I actually wanted to make the foreground rocks more dominate, and the shadow area above them is perhaps too large, but moving to a lower angle caused me to lose the distant ridge and I decided against it. In hindsight, though, I wish I had tried it for comparison.