2013_01_zion_np_0849_web

... I was amusing myself by looking at this as a crotch shot (it's quite good as such ...), and now I can't see it as anything else.

Don't mind me ... pretend you don't see it ...

There is some potential for grotesque humor here, but I didn't want to be the first to point it out.

I really wanted to like this photo. And I might in another light. But the light is flat and uninteresting. It needed some side lighting to accent the symmetrical composition.

This is what I would call a travel snapshot, a picture taken primarily for documentation purposes. There's nothing wrong with it, but I imagine nearly everyone who's visited this spot has a similar shot. Most of us take travel snapshots, so this is not a criticism of such, but the difference for me is that a photograph will demonstrate some additional thought about lighting and composition, while a snapshot will be more of a quick grab. There does appear to be some thought about composition here, as the lines are going right down the middle, which I think is appropriate, but as Lex noted, the lighting is flat and uninteresting, and there's no detail seen in the plant life (or I think that's what it is) at the sides of the frame.

Questions of lighting and composition aside, I see a potential message here. Much of the photo is devoted to the asphalt highway, which bores straight through a beautiful rock outcrop. It says something about our desire to conquer nature, but even more about our apparent desire to make every place accessible to cars, even the wilds of National Parks. It both amuses me and distresses me that the Park Service feels a need to build paved roads through the parks (literally, in the case of tunnels) to increase the number of visitors and aid them in making their visit brief. As one who loves rocks, this is a depressing scene that illustrates our obsessions and short-sightedness.

Mark,

The photo is actually about equal parts road and equal parts rock, but it would be interesting to hear if the photographer had thoughts related to your inerpretation when taking the shot. I also wonder if it was taken from a car or on foot. On foot, he'd have been able to frame the shot in a manner that portrayed a specific message, while in a car he might have had to simply fire away and take what he got.

less commmon photograph of a National Park

I wonder if this intro to the photo is meant to be ironic. It is funny, regardless. It's one of the most common type photos one sees people with cameras taking, a framed tunnel with light at the end. Bull's-eye! Who hasn't shot one of these? That it's in a national park actually seems more tragic than uncommon.

As to the photographer's intentions, it would be interesting to hear. But wouldn't change much. Mark's interpretation would still be as valid whether the photographer intended it to be read just the way Mark did or just the way Julie did or any number of other ways he may have intended. His intentions carry the photo only so far. The image also speaks for itself and it may say any number of things to us, all valid.

Though there is a down side for sure, I'm kind of glad we have an accessible National Parks system so people can enjoy and experience them in a variety of ways. I'm all for conservation within reason, but when conservation limits access too severely, I wonder how much it's worth it. Sometimes, I'm sure it is and then I'd advocate for it. But I imagine there is room for some of our lands to be tightly controlled but still accessible by roadway.

This picture doesn't "speak" to me, not really sure why. Nothing really wrong with it, but it leaves me a bit cold. The color balance looks not quite right, if we assume that asphalt should be gray or blackish - but this could be the warmth of the Zion rocks reflecting their light. No ready ideas for how to improve such a shot, although I suggest a portrait orientation emphasizing the tunnel entrance and the yellow lines, cutting out much of the side rocks, would increase the impact and emphasize the verticals and those strong yellows.

How is this so much a "less common photograph of a National Park" when it it really is a rather common (or at least somewhat common) photograph of a tunnel?

"less common photograph of a National Park" = Not a 1990s vintage 20mm lens with polarizer and camera loaded up with Velvia photo of: an orangey arch; an orangey slot canyon; Mabel and the kids squinting into the sun posed in front of the park gate.

Unlike those, I would like to see a variation of this tunnel under a full moon. Okay, I wouldn't mind seeing Mabel... umm... never mind, I have no idea where I was going with that thought. But a long exposure nighttime photo of this tunnel under moonlight could be interesting.

National Parks are often destination locations for (casual) photography, but the amount of ground to cover over usually short periods of time means the photos are often grab shots under default circumstances, unlike destinations close to home where extensive planning is possible.

I guess ones travel intention and level of commitment dictates the result - I bought a couple of large art-nude prints from a photographer about 10 years ago who brought a model with him on a 3 month photo excursion in a national park carrying a LF camera kit; the results were spectacular.

To me this image illustrates the modern way of experiencing the world, as a sightseer, following directions to where other people think there is something interesting to see. The paved road weighs as much as nature (in this image that is) which reinforces the impression. I cannot see what comes after the tunnel, but it surly looks like it's only a small part of the experienceable world.

Tunnel vision.