Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
The Badlands of South Dakota
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jan 24, 2017 06:33:34   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
Doing some updating of PP of old photos I started on ones of a trip in 2007 when I was shooting a Minolta DiMAGE Z1, the camera I believe was the precursor to the bridge cameras of today. I always considered the photos of the Badlands rather flat and boring, being taken around mid-day at 95 degrees. I present a few here for your enjoyment and, I hope, some CC.















Reply
Jan 24, 2017 06:52:57   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Nice. No malls or housing developments.

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 06:54:18   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Nice. No malls or housing developments.



Reply
 
 
Jan 24, 2017 07:02:08   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 07:03:10   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
Longshadow wrote:



Reply
Jan 24, 2017 07:18:19   #
djtravels Loc: Georgia boy now
 
Beautiful scenery in these shots, but the colors seem a little off on my monitor.

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 07:48:25   #
Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida
 
Very nice captures of a rather alien landscape!

Reply
 
 
Jan 24, 2017 07:49:08   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
djtravels wrote:
Beautiful scenery in these shots, but the colors seem a little off on my monitor.


Or it could be my fault. Let's see if someone more intimately familiar with the area has any comment.

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 07:50:29   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
Cwilson341 wrote:
Very nice captures of a rather alien landscape!


Thank you, Carol.

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 08:13:58   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
Aside from flat light at time of your visit, the issue for most viewers is scale. Google image search shows a couple with perfectly placed bighorn sheep in foreground or with very early, very late dramatic lighting.

But you do have several that, placed in a series, could work: 6, 5 and 3 in order of closest to most distant.

I have never been (skirted the area on my way westward, it was raining that day) but it must be an awesome sight!

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 09:14:37   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Aside from flat light at time of your visit, the issue for most viewers is scale. Google image search shows a couple with perfectly placed bighorn sheep in foreground or with very early, very late dramatic lighting.

But you do have several that, placed in a series, could work: 6, 5 and 3 in order of closest to most distant.

I have never been (skirted the area on my way westward, it was raining that day) but it must be an awesome sight!
Aside from flat light at time of your visit, the i... (show quote)


Thanks, Linda. I assume you are referring to color shading. I'm 99% sure that 7 is accurate as shown. The difficulty is the changing colors depending on the location. None of the colors/shadings in 6 and 5 were present in the more easterly areas.

...and my color vision problems don't help a bit.

Reply
 
 
Jan 24, 2017 09:23:51   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
neilds37 wrote:
Thanks, Linda. I assume you are referring to color shading. I'm 99% sure that 7 is accurate as shown. The difficulty is the changing colors depending on the location. None of the colors/shadings in 6 and 5 were present in the more easterly areas.

...and my color vision problems don't help a bit.


Not sure what you mean by color shading. Having never been, I don't know what the colors should look like. But the mid day light washes out much of the color and also makes the image appear flat, as you mentioned, because there are no shadows to show the contours.

My other point was scale. For those of us who haven't visited, we have no idea how large or vast the scene is without something in foreground to give us a sense of size.

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 09:41:03   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Not sure what you mean by color shading. Having never been, I don't know what the colors should look like. But the mid day light washes out much of the color and also makes the image appear flat, as you mentioned, because there are no shadows to show the contours.

My other point was scale. For those of us who haven't visited, we have no idea how large or vast the scene is without something in foreground to give us a sense of size.


Don't know if this will help any with scale, but 3 was taken at a 35mm equiv. focal length of 143mm, and 4 was taken at 380mm.

Reply
Jan 24, 2017 09:49:49   #
neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA
 
This photo taken at 35 equiv. of 38mm.



Reply
Jan 24, 2017 09:59:15   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
neilds37 wrote:
This photo taken at 35 equiv. of 38mm.


Now this is what I'm talkin' about regarding scale.

Per your previous OK, I'm posting a crop: remove group of people from the right side, and since you've cut off the guy at bottom anyway, cut him a bit more.

You are now left with a sense of the size of the rock formations because of the people in the frame. You also have a beautiful sky and a pleasing ridge line for the composition.

I did a quick edit of the thumbnail in a Chromebook app. If I had a large file, I would not include the sky in sharpening or saturation, just to keep it non-competing. But that's strictly a personal preference, just as my tendency to love big and wide skies, which is why I wouldn't crop down any

Thank you Neil!



Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.