landscape 'Sunrise, Bryce Canyon'

Winter sunlight strikes the vertical rock columns called 'hoodoos' in

Bryce Canyon National Park that have resisted erosion and at a certain

time of year and a certain time of the morning, seems to pass through

some of them, making them appear almost translucent. Your ratings,

critiques and remarks are invited and most welcome. If you wish to

remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

Ths is the color edition.  B&W posted elsewhere.

john

John (Crosley)

The ISO for this photo is 100 from a camera with an ISO sensitivity of 100 to 800.

In shooting landscapes such as this, despite huge gains in ISO sensitivity in low light, this photo seems to demonstrate that there is little that has been gained at the lower end of the ISO range, at least that's how I view it.

john

John (Crosley)

You captured this gorgeous light very well, with a well composed, well exposed image. Just wish the bare bush at bottom left was not there.

Beautiful colors!

I stopped and had to look twice. I though the name said John Crosley and I knew it was Bryce Canyon. I though the same John Crosley the wonderful street photographer and it was! Not that you can't take some other type of photos. Nice shot John when were you at Bryce and what camera were you using? Back in my film days I always tried to use ISO 100 if I could.

Thank you so much.

You do portraits, nudes, street, even still life with equal acumen.

I have always tried to do likewise -- no matter what the subject.

;~))

john (the landscape photographer)

John (Crosley)

From my first days I shot color and black and white - street and news subjects as well as color transparencies for scenes such as this.

The bush, lower left, is for hiding my landscape photographer credentials under --- really none at all.

In Germany, a friend trying for her 'fine arts' degree told me twenty yeas ago, she could not advertise herself as a photographer without a MFA (Master of Fine Arts).  The same for teaching in the US -- no university of college would consider me for a teacher because I have no MFA.

I went to a journalism class taught by a guy with a MFA and he was SO BAD I could hardly contain myself (he was holding class in the darkroom where I was getting a tour and he was soooo full of misinformation and lack of it, I almost got sick). 

But he had a MFA -- the 'credential' he needed and a very little experience (as far as I was concerned).

Life ain't about credentials (ask Bill Gates) -- same with the founder of Facebook, both Harvard dropouts, or the two founders of Google (same thing I think, but from Stanford.)

I took from Columbia (College, Columbia University, NYC) what I wanted and what they had to offer me, then went to Viet Nam as a civilian, and also before and after took shots like this for 'no reason' than it had a cinch on my soul.  It still does.  More so with 'street' work.

I never had a tutor or instructor, but you have given me better advice then any professional or professor with a MFA or even a doctor of fine Arts.   (One exception, my personal mentor, a Lucie Award winner, whose very occasional advice is genuinely superb.)

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

I'm kind of sneaky like that; just when you think you've got me pigeon-holed, I show up with something like this.

Landscapes are great, enduring, everyone loves them but once you've done two things, the rest is relatively easy: 

1.  Learn to use your camera, master framing and exposures, and do good composition;

2. BE THERE at the right time no matter what the weather or how many hardships you must endure.

I've lived in the Great American West and know how to take landscapes as part of my soul, but the street attracts me because from one moment to the next it can change -- far faster than the winter morning sunlight can change the appearance of these translucent hoodoos.

Best wishes back from John, who knows in his soul that James Kazan is not just an outstanding -- even world class -- architectural photographer, but also could tackle almost any subject and do so with superiority.

I know in my heart that your greatness as a photographer does not stop with buildings and structures and love of architecture, but begins from a love of light, shadow, darkness and, foremost, composition.

You make buildings come alive - I don't have that skill (but I'm working on it, in my own small way).  

Thanks very much for the compliments, they warm that soul that takes those 'street' photographs as well as this - it's all from the same vision and the same pervasive rule:  Keep it interesting.

john

John (Crosley)

No photoshop (other than for minor levels adjustment.  NO dodging, burning and use of any other device than shadow/highlight filter a very little bit.

My belief is that you go to the field and TAKE a good photograph and 'bring it out' in image editing if necessary, but little more.

Photo.net is full of GREAT Photoshoppers who take pretty good images then transform them into minor miracles with the Photoshop image editing program.

This is not a knock on them; they do wonderful work which I admire - I just don't do that.

Maybe I'm a little too simple-minded for such fancy stuff.

;~)

john

John (Crosley)

Note to James Kazan - either a Nikon D2X or a D2Xs, I've had several and one or the other was atop my tripod - - really maybe the only time I've ever used one other than a Wemberly for bird shots with a 200~400 f 4 or other long glass which demanded a tripod. 

This was with a 70-200 f 2.8 Nikkor stopped down and carefully framed, with light that lasted a short while, then increased to completely blow out everything for anyone who arrived later -- and they could only wonder why they couldn't get great shots such as decorate the lodge there.  (I arrived before the entrance gate was staffed, in the dead of night and set up.)

jc

Fabulous shot John! This is some of the nicest light I've scene in an image of Bryce. The translucent effect is excellent, and really adds to the image. It pays to get up early!

All the best,
Neil

In your nice compliment is the reason I do so few landscapes.

Unless you're on snowshoes, skis, have on hiking boots or are stepping from a snowmobile or other off-road conveyance, or even hanging from lines suspended from pitons like the late Galen Rowell, you're likely to keep seeing the same scenes over and over.

You recognize this scene, and if I had not done it so well, it never would have been exhibited anywhere.

Imagine the shame of the aspiring photographer taking a photo of a famous landmark from a famous lookout and doing it less than spectacularly.  Everyone would say 'look -- he tried to compete and he just hasn't got it!'  There's little room for interpretation in taking such great scenes -- the postcard scenes we all know. 

You can hope to frame it well and capture some 'magic light' as I hope I did.

You, on the other hand, obviously have the mountaineering, skiing, hiking experience, so all your landscapes are unique -- your scenics and especially your inspiring black and whites.

Tell me, are those digital? 

And if so, how do you do them so well -- I have trouble getting such clarity and sharpness in my digital B&Ws despite now using 'filters' including Nik's various conversions as well as Imagenomics.

[however, I seldom shoot at ISO 100 or even from a tripod so that may be part of the reason]

Your hints are most welcome (I also have many readers, and if they saw your stunning black and whites and they're digital, they'd also want to know how you do it.)

Thanks very much for your fine comment.

john 

John (Crosley)

Although I've taken other landscapes, this is the very first time I went to a famous area and took a photo from a place where picture postcards and 'landmark' photos of the famous place are known.

Failure was not an option, although never showing it was!

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

John: I think you're missing the point of photography in your comment. The point is to take the images for yourself in my opinion. Certainly it pleases me to here good co0mments about my images, but in reality there's always someone out there who could do them better, but they would not necessarily be better from my standpoint. I love every moment I'm out taking photographs, and hopefully I can capture at least a tiny piece of the beauty I see around me for others to see. Photography isn't about competition!

Thanks for your wonderful compliments on my B&Ws. They are all digital images taken with a variety of Nikon DSLRs ranging from a D1 to a D700. I shoot all the images in color, and convert them to B&W using Channel Mixer in Photoshop. Perhaps I'm just to lazy to learn how to use the actual B&W conversion capability now built into the new versions of PS, but I still prefer Channel Mixer. I think any good B&W should have the full range of tones from pure black to, pure white, and often sacrifice a few highlight/shadow details to get the hard contrasts that I like. That's where the crisp look comes from I think. I also sharpen the B&Ws using some luminosity sharpening that I learned from someone (can't recall now who it was or I'd credit them) here on photo.net.

ps The hiking is good for you too! ;-)

With pleasure,
Neil

Where I am it's 6:51 a.m.

I went out yesterday afternoon to take photos.

I came back with 750 images on one camera, and a huge number of keepers.

One a second camera, longer lens in an urban setting, maybe 300 or so images.

I image edited them on camera -- choosing the ones to convert to B&W and doing so digitally using the in-camera image editing function, then wrote a long letter to an agent who wants to buy a particular photo.  I have a photo book (two actually) near completion and this person seemed highly placed, and a photo editor with a world famous publisher to boot.

So, I've been all evening gathering images (some never posted anywhere, but taken 'for my own personal pleasure), in a file for a second e-mail to this person (and perhaps others).

Then about an hour ago, I began downloading photos from one camera, and that's about finished.  The sun's up on Thursday, somewhere behind or above the rain clouds . . . but I love rain (see my comment today to Svetlana Korolyova).

In a while, I'll maybe have my first food since yesterday noon, then continue downloading the second camera's worth -- the moderate to tele work.  Some of it is very good also, but it's harder in an urban/suburban setting to do well in close quarters except for portraits, and even for them I prefer wide angle . . . . usually now.

I maybe got some lifetime keepers today, whether I show them to anyone or not and whether I get high scores or not . . . . what matters first is whether they meet my test.

That's why I almost never take any photo down I've decided to post for critique . . . . low or lowest scores notwithstanding.

I am ready to back up what I do with a camera.

For decades, I hardly took any photos.  Friends got bored if they looked at my work -- they didn't understand.  I had the wrong audience and where I lived for the longest time I couldn't find anyone interested among Silicon Valley's geeks.

I longed for an 'Aperture' Monograph, but was not active, so why would they bother?  I think my early work was good enough too (see my early work in 'Black and White, Then to Now' folder.

I languished without an audience . . . I wanted feedback and though I am my own harshest critic, few would suspect.

My download failed.  Iit's now past 7:15 and I've got to redownload and then do a second then begin photoshopping. I shoot NEFs and jpgs 'fine' as backup (or sometimes the in-camera convesion or processing to JPGs is better than I can do in Photoshop -- never underestimate those geniuses at Nikon who come up with those algorithms.

I'm hungry and I've got with duplicates from shooting NEFs and jpgs together, more than 2,000 photos just to look at plus all the in-camera conversions to B&W.

I've still not eaten.

Do I need an audience? Yes, I do; I was a journalist with worldwide exposure, and my work once was on front pages sometimes all over the world. 

I haven't forgotten that photography for me is part 'communication', and if it 's in a drawer where I kept my work for 30 or so years, it's not communicating anything.

With audience feedback, it keeps me fresh and wanting to do more.  Photo.net and other clubs are great for that too -- they're an endless maw, and if you don't feed the maw you're soon forgotten.

Yes, I need an audience, but I don't live for pleasing them -- though a few members REALLY COUNT -- the select ones mostly for their comments and colloquy -- look at our exchange . . . for instance.

I like high scores, but I don't take down low scoring photos either.

I DO LIKE THE COMMENTS.  My photography has some of the finest, cleverest, most intelligent and well though out comments on this entire service, if you look carefully (my opinion, but after 13,000 comments -- at least half mine) I find that readers come here just to read the comments and colloquy because it also is interesting.

I shoot for myself AND an audience.

I come first however.

If it doesn't pass my test,then it gets the boot.

Nobody ever sees it.

Download failed again, loose connection fitting.  Oh well!

A sleepless night?

All in the way I do things with my photography leading me, not the other way around.

I'm its almost helpless servant.  The part of my brain that says 'get a good photo' is like a narcotic and it needs a hit (not ratings though), or I get restless, irritable and squirmy.

It's my Jones.

It's MY Jones.

And I think it is yours too.

[non-english speakers, e-mail me or ask a native English speaker if you do not understand the use of the term 'Jones']

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

Please write me or post here about the what and how of the 'luminosity' sharpening you learned -- I am greatly interested, and so would any other member who has seen your work, I judge.

john

John (Crosley)

Not true! You, sir, are a sophisticated beast. (I mean that in a good way John) I never thought I had you pegged. I simply disagreed with the comment you made : "Imagine the shame of the aspiring photographer taking a photo of a famous landmark from a famous lookout and doing it less than spectacularly.  Everyone would say 'look -- he tried to compete and he just hasn't got it!'  There's little room for interpretation in taking such great scenes -- the postcard scenes we all know."

There is no shame in taking a bad photograph of anything as long as you learn something from it. We all enjoy our audience or we wouldn't be here.

There was never any doubt in my mind that you're much more than an average photographer John. I've viewed street photography for years and wondered what the point was - until I saw your work (and a few others on photo.net). Since discovering your work I now see the point and understand the magic of what you capture. You should be declared a national treasure in my opinion!

As for your addiction to photography - well sorry guy, but that's a little obvious ;-) Same issue here I'm afraid.

The luminosity sharpening info that I gleaned from someone (wish I could remember who) here at photo.net is as follows:

1. Duplicate layer, and set blend mode to Darken.
2. Unsharp Mask (USM) at 12% / 2.4 pixels / Threshold 0; Edit->Fade Unsharp Mask->Luminosity
3. USM at 75% / 1.4 pixels / 0; Edit->Fade Unsharp Mask->Luminosity
4. USM at 75% / 0.9 pixels / 0; Edit->Fade Unsharp Mask->Luminosity
5. USM at 80% / 0.6 pixels / 0; Edit->Fade Unsharp Mask->Luminosity

Go eat, and sleep John!

Talk to you later,

Neil

John,

Very nice colors.  Nice richness and contrast.  Some parts of the photo looked a little more

sharp then other parts.  I mean if you compare the top and bottom.  That would be my only critique if any.

Over good job.

Michael

Thanks for such a high compliment.

I am not even sure this photo ever was sharpened; the zoom telephoto, among the sharpest ever made, was stopped down somewhat and hyperfocal distance was used.

If you meant the distance is not pin sharp, (top), then that was intended.

There are also atmospherics to consider.  If you mean the reverse, I cant easily spot, it but that would just be a sharpening issue.  That particular lens is so sharp many of its best works never needed sharpening.

I had several/numerous editions of the same lens and all performed exactly the same -- spectacularily -- plus Nikon repair periodically checked them for such this as focus, etc.

I'm very glad this has pleased you so much.

john

John (Crosley)

A wonderful view of nature's beauty.

I read this time no ambiguity in your response (the last I read was my own dunderheadedness).

Every once in a while, I retreat from documenting society, its joys and its ills and just try to take a pretty picture.

It's hard to compete when one's standing on a lookout over a scene captured thousands of times before, but I think I succeeded.  It's one of my finest, and NO manipulation,I'm happy to report.

Thanks for the supportive comment.

john

John (Crosley)