Jumbo Rocks in Sunset Light

I like this  image  very much, lighting on the rock is  incredible, the composition and the geometric form in nice  harmony, almost a musics, shadows, contrast excellent, . . . but . . .  the sky in  my monitor looks  extremely over  saturated, almost  glowing  like a radioactive material. IMHO. My monitor? It is  hard  to look at it.

Gratings.

V2

 Stephen.  Where is this place?

Bela, trust me, I didn't have a polarizing filter and I didn't touch the saturation levels.  I have a series of three shots, all taken toward the end of the day; this is number three, just before the shadows hit these rocks (the rock on the bottom is already in shadow, and I'm debating a crop that would eliminate it; what do folks think??).  The rocks have taken on a very reddish hue; in the earlier shots, the red wasn't nearly as pronounced.

This is located in Joshua Tree National Park in southern California, east of Los Angeles and northeast of Palm Springs.  This particular part of the park is in the Jumbo Rocks campground, almost due south of the northeast entrance to the park at Twentynine Palms.

I too had long wondered where this was located.  Turns out I had been within walking distance of these rocks on many occasions in past years, except I always walked in the wrong direction.  This taught me another lesson:  explore; don't always go to the same general area time after time, even if that area has a lot to offer.

For many years I had wanted to photograph these rocks, but I didn't know

where in Joshua Tree they were located. Turns out I was within walking

distance of them on many occasions but didn't know it. This is just prior to

sunset, and the color of the rocks changes dramatically. Comments and

suggestions (esp. regarding the shaded rock at the bottom) are

appreciated. Thanks.

Nice...

About the shaded rock though. I'd say it's a case of "cut/don't clip".

The shaded rock part is so small that it seems a mistake. If you'd made it bigger (panning down) you'd have shown us the rock on purpose. Plus it would probably balance the sky better. It does not have to be equally big because the dark shape has a lot more mass than the light sky.

Hope this helps,

Matthijs.

Thanks for the comments.  Matthijs, your comment about this being small enough to look like a mistake (not seen) is a good one -- it's a comment I often make when only slivers of something make it into the photo.  This is a result of a fixed focal length lens and literally not being able to move one foot forward or one foot backward -- I was stuck on a small ledge.  It will go, and then I have to consider making this a rectangle rather than a square; that will depend on what has to go and what is able to remain.

Hi Stephen. You need  this  shadow  part for the composition. If it  is  more a little, it would  help more. It add a balance  to the sky. The  image has  a foreground anchor point, if it  is not  there, the orange/red  rock would  flatly sink to the  bottom. . . .   The  sky ?. . .  I  have  to check  my  monitor  color  calibration, because the  blue has a neon glow on my monitor. Or! My eyes  fooling me, because of the  saturated  red  glow  of  the rocks. The  other  thing I noticed, you have  some  artifact  close to the  rock edges  in the blue. My monitor, or  my eyes  fooling me again?  It is a beautiful image,  excellent composition. I wouldn't change anything on this image. Oh.  Using a polarizer, or GND, etc., is  not a crime. It  is  natural and  if  somebody creating a dark sky, and improving the image visual effect, so be it.  It is OK. I love those rocks  very much.

Greetings, Stephen

It's a tough call on the foreground rock, Stephen, it could go either way.  I might tend to eliminate it only because it is not as sharp as the rest of the image but it does provide a bit of a visual anchor/counterpoint.  The sky looks just fine on my monitor.