House on Fire site in Mule Canyon

Looks like a sci-fi illustration.  I'm coveting your gear too. Try the 14-24mm. I use one on my 5d2 and it's amazing. Gave you a 6.

Thanks Mark. I've used the 14-24 before and loved it. Saving up for it. Still have the feeling I'm just scratching the surface with the PCE capabilities. 

I like it, though I'm not quite sure what it really is or how it was processed. If you look at the 'fire,' you can make out some interesting forms. It's the sort of thing that you're likely to see something different in each time you view it. Very nice.

This feels like hearing Debussy's La Mer played VERY LOUD on solo kazoo.

Personally, I find myself lost in a sea of orange. I like Andrew's black and white much better, especially its detail.

Agree with Michael on the black and white version of same frame.
I don't know what I'm looking at either and don't much care for an explanation.
I'm much more interested in Andrews hundreds of landscape shots of the great American nature. Yant Flat Cliffs is a gem.

I don't have to know what I'm looking at in order to appreciate and enjoy an image. I think the b/w version would have been the better choice. I enjoy this as an abstract image in my mind. I like the layers of differing texture/structure but the orange toning turns me off after a short time. However I think with more attention to the toning this could also be a successful image.
Tony

I assume it is a sort of house or a shelter built into a cliff, but can see that the shadows and texture of the cliff resembles a somewhat surreal fire and smoke coming out of the roof of the house. The most interesting part i think, is the shapes and tones in the cliff's texture which add an almost religious dimension to the image.

I, too, feel it is too orange, although I appreciate that this is required to make it akin to a fire. I would bring up the brightness of the house in the lower third, desaturate the orange a little (if this was digital then reds and oranges are usually oversaturated anyway), or I would selectively slightly desaturate parts of the image to help overcome the feeling we are caught inside a 1970s sitcom. Of course, some would oppose this in principle as "manipulation". I also think it needs a little more contrast to make it more striking. Adding contrast would make increasing the brightness of the house even more important. The image is interesting but needs some more work to make it more obviously like the title.

Anthony, I fully agree. I don't either have to know what I'm looking at in order to appreciate an image. However, in this case, it is obviously a house and it is, according to the title, in fire.

Thanks to all for comments and criticisms. For me, the fun is all in the taking of the photo. I don't have much patience for digital processing and rarely spend more than 10 minutes on one. Move around a few sliders here and there. Get rid of some sensor spots. Move on.
Here's a link with some background info on Mule Canyon-
http://www.utah.com/playgrounds/mule_canyon.htm
It's a very pretty canyon in southern Utah off Hwy 95 a bit west of Comb Wash. If you google House on Fire Utah Mule Canyon you'll see a zillion photos like this. I was very surprised to see this as a Photo of the Week here. It's flattering but I really don't think it's worthy of that exposure(gotta love a good pun). It's one of those "I was there" photos.
The ruin is about a mile in from the dirt road and up on the north side. Large cairn points the way up from the wash. When you get there it's surprising how small the whole thing is. Sort of like Mesa Arch in Canyonlands. The orange glow is very similar to Mesa Arch as well. Unless you see it with your own eyes it's hard to really appreciate how deep the orange is for brief periods during the morning. Other photogs have even marked the ground there with some "x"s scratched into the sandstone to mark what many may consider nice points of view. The hook is the patterns of erosion that from some angles could be imagined to be tongues of fire. Oddly enough, I didn't really get a feel for that standing in front of it. I did some tweaking of clarity, vibrance, contrast, and honestly just a touch for saturation. I agree with some of the comments about the B/W. Personally I prefer that to the color. I may give a go at the suggestions regarding a redo regarding tone and contrast and the orange.
Again, thank you for the criticisms and comments.

Beautiful!

http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

The execution of this image is very good and I am grateful to the photographer for introducing me to this unusual place with its ancient dwelling and amazing erosion that produces the effect of a house on fire.

The problem with this photograph has nothing to do with the photographer or the quality of the image. The problem is that this is a famous site and has been photographed countless times. This image, therefore, is not unique and may well be redundant. I am assuming there is probably only one angle from which this scene can be best taken. The only hope this photograph has of being special is being the very best of the scads of photos of this spot.

This may not be relevant to the photographer, who seems to have made this image for pleasure and not to win recognition.
It may have sparked interest in this site among people like myself who have never heard of it. That is enough justification for this photograph, its obvious aesthetic qualities aside.

This photograph raises questions about photographing famous sites. The Empire State Building, Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, Old Faithful: What more can photographers says about them, unless something extraordinary is happening to them? I fear there is nothing they can say. But photography is not only about creating unique images that will rock the world of art. It is also about photographing something for private pleasure.
This is a very nice image. It is a pleasure to see. That is enough.

HERE'S what Steichen had to say about the Flatiron Building.

I think there could be all sorts of things to say in all sorts of ways about famous sites.

I agree with Fred on that. These places and subjects are maybe the most challenging subjects to shoot. Shooting something that noone has ever seen before is another sort of challenge.

Please note that I wrote: "What more can photographers says about them, unless something extraordinary is happening to them?" Yes, all the sites I mentioned can have something extraordinary happen to them, or, anyway something not photographed before, or very rarely photographed. This is the case with Steichen's beautiful photograph of the Flatiron Building. What carries the photograph is not the Flatiron building per se but the surroundings and the photographer's perfect timing. The way the elements come together is extraordinary.

Considering the POW, one must ask what can make a House on Fire photograph as extraordinary as the Flatiron Building photograph? I can see few, outside of a landslide (goodness forbid) or maybe a big snake fighting an eagle in from of it. Yes, one can shoot it with a fisheye lens or a Lensbaby, but such novelties have a short shelf life. But all said, there is nothing much going around this utterly amazing confluence of a human-made stone structure and a natural fluke.
I have not been to this site. If I ever go I may well live to eat my words. I might even dedicate the rest of my life to photographing House on Fire. Anyway, I like this POW. It catches the essence of what is wonderful about this site.

Alex. I agree with you. Millions of pictures of the Leaning Tower of Pisa later, I am not sure we can say anything else about it. One might even argue it diminishes the experience of going to Pisa too - although actually I found the reverse, but I agree with your point. I too had not heard of this site as being described as a "house on fire", so the shot had a novelty to me. Now I have, no doubt I will see it reproduced everywhere and it will return to being "just" a usual touristy shot due to over familiarity. Such is the lot of the photographer I suppose.

It's a bit top heavy. If you cut just a bit more than a third off, you'll stay in the image longer. You'll notice the actual dwelling place's detail's much more then, which did not stand out previously.