Photo of the Grand Canyon shot from the south rim

This is an exceptional landscape one we do not see much anymore.

It makes me want to step into the valley and explore. So there is a little grain in the sky very easy taken out in PS , I took the liberty to do so. Full marks from me for this , I say this not having seen any other work from you. Keep shooting Michael.

I like this shot, and I dont like this shot. Whoever wanted to see this in color, you need to

ditch your digi cam and get a REAL camera!! :) What I like is the composition, I dont mind

the tangled mess in the upper right corner, it dosnt draw my eye at all. I also like the

atmosphere, the grays fade nicely into the canyon with more contrast in the foreground.

What I dont like about this is that the atmosphere that I like was gained through photoshop

instead of carefull use of the zone system and a good spot meter.

I have been trying to thnk how I can explain the feeling this photo conveys to me and i

think I finally figured it out. What I feel is how crowded this place has become. The photo

has a very busy and claustrophobic feeling to me and I think the crop just exacerbates this

feeling. Neither tree is doing much for me as presented. The right tree does have a

potentially sensual feel to it, but it has been cropped awkwardly and makes it feel like an

intrusion rather than a purposeful element. the left tree just seems like it was there and

so it is there. The result is that I just feel uneasy like I might if I was fighting the crowds

on the rim rather than enjoying the expanse and spaciousness of this place.

 

Comparing this to Michael's Spider Rock, Canyon De Chelly, I think the Canyon De Chelly

photo captures the spirit of the place and the vastness of the landscape while this does

neither. By the way, in season, Canyon De Chelly is also very busy.

 

So, I guess if this photo was to create a metaphor for the crowding at our national parks, it

succeeded.

As a photo of the Grand Canyon, this one falls far short for me. For one thing the actual canyon itself is but just a small part of the image, making up less than a third. The two trees as well as an extra bush to the right only block what's left of the canyon even more. The trees are okay I guess, though nothing that special since the foreground accompanying those trees is really not interesting at all. I am not that happy with the right tree being cut off rather harshly either. If you were opting for an image like this, where the canyon is not the main focus, but rather an interesting scene that includes the canyon, then I would have included all of the right tree. There is also a rather obvious tilt to the right that needs to be taken care of. It's just too busy altogether and one that could almost deserve the term "sloppy" when it comes to the composition in my opinion. Also, in my mind, the crop makes it even worse. Why would you crop out the sky? That gives the image some needed contrast and allows this to at least have some hope. This one is definitely over-rated. I'll have to take a look at this photographers other work to see what else he has. Hopefully I can agree with the photographer when he says:

 

"I will admit that this is not one of my favorite photos in my portfolio"...

 

I am sure there are others then that are better.

To complain about everything and then not show how to improve what is in existance can not help anyone. Anyone can say they could move back to include more, but then no one knows what all, problem wise, would come up to be worse than what is now showing! Assumptions don't work as to what maybe could have been done, because the scene is now, as I say, in concrete already. So how do you improve what is in concrete? Well, this is very important, as most of us don't see the problems until we get home, and the concrete is quite hard. You must use your cropping skill to it's best ability, and that is your only major tool at this point.

 

To say the sky is nice, but the upper tree is bothersome is pointless. You can't have you cake and eat it too.

The above crop made an already sloppy image even worse. Unfortunately, in my mind, this is often the case with never-ending crop sessions. They usually end up making the original image looking pretty doggone good!... :)

 

Either back up a bit and give this image some breathing room, or move on to a different position altogether. If the canyon is to be the focus, I'd like to see more of that closer up, rather than so much empasis on the trees which just don't do much for me as we see them now. He could also rotate the camera a bit (or do that in Photoshop).

Sorry to mention it but POW series that I have seen, including this image, is more or less a cropping and editing excercise. Can't we see the image as it is presented rather making it one of our own. The original is very good in my opinion and photographer must have spent time on composing it.

 

It is a beautiful photo. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Its really a great and live photo, the trees are so prominent in the foreground and one feels as if one is standing there. Inspite of the absence of colours, it is beautiful!. Valerie

Congrats Michael for your POW, a very deserved one, though this is not one of your best images... Yes, it is a very good photo, but to me, there are many more outstanding images in your portfolio. By the way, IMO the suggested crop is not a good option, but as Vincent said a few steps back would do better. Ah! there is just one little detail that disturbs me: the shadow of another tree in the foreground, I find it too large? or maybe I am wrong? what do you think?

 

I like the BW version, it has so many details and a grey scale so good, that I do not want to see it in color, do not need it.

Mr Burgess (happy to see you're not far Doug) was mentioning about maiden ... I had a similar feeling - indeed something homeric or even biblic in that image (the rocky background, the tourmented skies,...) Moses is not far,... the great temptation too, 'all this world could belong to you...'

something diabolic, arrogant and so tempting in that tortuous tree and something stoic, pure and humble in the other straighter tree. The branch almost touching sounds like an invitation to transgress the original law...

nice grey tones here, crop doesn't work at all for me here (even being often an adept of square images myself), instead impoverish the image and cut the whole elegance of the tree's shape. In fact, I'd prefer to see more than less in that image.

Reminds me of some Ansel Adam works... by the way, great portfolio you have Mr Ging!

i have not read all these comments, there are simply too many now. i think black and white is fine if there are strong contrasts to give the picture depth. in this case, however, one has to look twice to see what is forground and what background. in my view this is an example where natural color would surely be superior to this black and white version

After having my say in the critique above, I was swayed by other posters comments to check out your portfolio. WOW! Really special. The above POW is absolutely not your best. They saved that for last. I encourage all to check out Michael Ging's other photograph. Nice work!

Three comments:

 

First, I enjoy the cropped image better as I feel that this sky, as shown, offers little to the image.

 

Second, I am amused by the above comment that states "as we all know, black and white images hide imperfections".

 

Really? I always was under the impression that weak color photographers used color to distract from imperfections.

 

Third, I agree with Vince about this looking a bit tipped to the right. I could be wrong, but that was the first impression I got when looking at this.

I fully agree with Sarah Pasha's comment.

 

It is a beautiful capture as is from a photography point of view. I don't know how professional editors view it though.

 

Thanks for sharing Michael Ging and I hope to see your work and presence here (pnet) for time to come.

I think this one is about perspective, and that generally Vincent has it about right - I'd like to see this at the least from a step or two back, perhaps a bit more sky, more tree, and a bit more perspective on the whole scene.

 

There is a vanishing point created by the two trees that draws my eye - outside of the photo to the left. Ideally, I'd like to know what is to the right and left of this scene, and wonder if this might be a very good middle third of a horizontal photograph.

 

Still, I love the detail in the foreground rocks and in the knarled trees, and the photo is worth some time viewing just for those; the Canyon is too hidden for the depth or grandeur to really kick in without seeing still more of it.

Personally, I like this image as it is. Interesting discussion. I have my 2 cents too.

 

I would vote for cropped version. The dense cloudy sky looks nice itself. In any other context it would be, probably, fine, but here this empty space on the top is a kind of minor distraction to me. The cropped version introduces more balanced composition with better focus on the Canyon. What is unfortunate, the cropping also removes a top of the beautiful tree on the right. But it�s probably inevitable trade-off.

 

I would disagree with Vincent and some others that one-third of the image is not enough to represent the Canyon. In the cropped version my main point of interest is exactly in the center where the Canyon is. And that�s enough to me to feel the atmosphere of this place. That�s how I see it.

 

Disagree with Vincent about the foreground too. I like the texture of the rocks, wood etc. Agree with Jacques, here is really something Homeric. These dancing lonely trees contribute more than block. What is so interesting behind them? Repetitive cliffs? May be, but not for me.

 

The horizon looks slightly tilted clock-wise, but in mountain area it�s frequently a false feeling. At least, the foreground seems OK. Even so it�s not critical here.

 

Overall very nice picture, excellent tonal range provided by the B&W film (vs digital B&W). Well deserves POW and the discussion. And Michael has an excellent interesting portfolio.

If one happenes to be at the Canyon, a tourist destination like Disneyland or Fisherman's Wharf, one makes that photo...or others like it. It's required. Little gets done photographically at the Canyon

unless one hikes to the bottom.

 

Ging simply posted something attractive, he didn't assert that it was great art. I like seeing the river.

 

Personally, I'd not have posted the photo because of the scruffy tree on the left, but that's irrelevant...it's a pretty snapshot, doesn't need to be belabored.

 

Ging's Navajo/Hopi relocation portraits, on the other hand, are masterful and moving. Same neighborhood as the Canyon.

very cool shot, i love the mood of it. the twisted tree on the right sets the whole tone. that's what i call photography!

Well Elves it looks like you were right! I personally like it and think it is an excellent photo. Why? because it is not your typical shot of the well known enormous "Grand" Grand Canyon. Really, you would have to be an elf for it to be big! LOL. This is exactly why I feel that this is an excellent composition not to mention the fact that the exposure is good, and the canyon is framed by the trees. I also agree with the Ansel Adams comment as this resembles his work. So I say Good Job Michael Keep up the good work.

 

 

Sue.

I must say that Iam astounded that anyone would lump the grand canyon in with Disney land and fisherman's wharf, even for the purposes of discussion. I have been there a few times, mid-summer and mid-winter, more and less remote parts, walked down to the river, camped in the forests away from the rim. It is an extraordinary part of the world, which Disney land etc most certainly are not. People say the grand canyon is crowded, but walk more than a few minutes from any lookout or the Bright-Angel trail and it is deserted.

 

As a result, rather than over-crowding and so forth, what this image reminds me of is how suprisingly difficult it is to take photos in this format. It is embarrassing to admit it because this kind of composition is almost a cliche of landscape photography, but I think I have literally never come away with what I was looking for when I tried it. Basically I end up with something that feels cluttered and/or contrived, as this does to me. I emotionally disengage and move on.

 

That said, I absolutely agree that there are many incredibly more moving images in Michael Ging's portfolio than this one. And some that put concerns about the aesthetics of this in perspective. He is certainly a fantastic photographer.

I don't think it matters that the canyon is not the main portion of the image. The pebbled ground and twisted tree make for a good foreground. The top right corner is fine. In fact, I quite like it. The second tree? Well, it's there and not much can be done about it, a slightly different angle perhaps? I will say however that the twisted tree has a branch that is 'touching' the other tree. Don't agree with that. On the whole, it is a beautiful image. Like it very much. Screams depth. Congratulations.

I suppose that a great part of this discussion would be significantly different if none of us had ever seen or even heard of this Canyon ... if none of us knew or had heard of the astonishing vastness. Take away what we already know about the Grand Canyon and the size and the crowds. (Haven't we all heard and read repeated discussions about the difficulty of capturing the essence of the size of the Grand Canyon on film?) What we're really talking about here are basically (1) the contents of the foreground and background, and (2) the grain in the sky. Everyone will have their own differing opinions on these topics.

 

When I followed the advice of many of the people commenting above, I took a look at Michael's whole portfolio. Yes, it is a fabulous portfolio, and there are many enviable images contained there. The Relocation folder is exceptional. And there are many other exceptional images scattered here and there throughout, separated by other high quality images. This image stands out in its own way because the sky is exciting, because the trees have wonderful textures, because the pebbles on the ground give foreground interest, and because there's that fabulous Canyon in the background (even if we didn't already know WHAT Canyon it is).

The image evoks a warm feeling. The canyon in bg.gives a context to the rough conditions of weather the trees are exposed to. The touch of the skewed tree branch on the other tree, gives the feeling of personification...and it is accentuated on the bright sky.I would have cropes a bit the fg. in order to accentuate that touch, but it is a good image as is, and my congratulation to you Michael, your work really deserves it. Pnina

I know it's been discussed before, but I think the image, although fantastic, fails to capture

what the scene really looked like because the canyon seems so small. I think a 50-mm lens

(to magnify the background) would have been better than the 24-mm lens. That said, I think

the image would probably be great as it is if it were printed very large.

I think that original print is much stronger than croped one.

I would name the pic -a dancer-.

The clouds shape looks like dancing around, and the bold tree, lifeless, looks also as dancing in very elegant maner. Background is also lifeless, but tree in mid plane is full of life, leafs, and like all is dancing around that tree, while the backgroynd is a place for spectators. That is just short report what I see. Any crop I see as not very good think. even some leafs in hand of dancer (bold tree) can get nice meaning, as -I have for you something,....-

 

Tonal range is also very wide. As it is made by F3 Nikon it also prooves that 35 mm can make such nice print. What suprise me is such good print from Nikon 24 mm lens.

 

In all an excelent photograph.