tommystrat wrote:
Everything is there - lighting, composition, stupendous subject and a great balance. However, IMHO, the foreground details are a bit lost. Perhaps that is your intention, to leave us working to discover the details - if so, then mission accomplished and a fine work. A bit of lightening of the shadows (a small bit) might pay dividends, but to the artist goes the intent. Thanks for posting a real gem.
I'll neither agree nor (strongly) disagree with your 'umble o'pinyon regarding the darkness and/or lost bites of foreground, Tommy. At least not at the present time. A year (or whenever) from now, if for whatever reason I decide to re-interpret the image, who knows? If I remember what you've suggested, maybe I
will bring the foreground shadows up a tad or two, but like I said: for now, nuh-uh, nope, and naagaahappen. By means of exposure and processing, what you see is what you get. And its what I want you to see.
Objectively speaking, though, if you could see the untouched raw files that went into this image, you'd see that the shadow areas
did get lifted some 5 or 6 stops. And in a few select areas, very possibly more than that. Its hard to gauge exactly because what I did, I did gradually, and in three different editors. Prior to shooting the scene, anyone with an ounce of experience would've agreed that the 18-ish Zone range, from where texture/detail needed to be to where it didn't, was going to pose some challenges. Simplest way to put it isn't simple, but to say I'd exposed for the highlights and processed for the shadows comes pretty close. That, plus having a fair awareness of what my manner of workflow is, and what my preferred software(s) are capable of producing, well, they'll go a looong, looooooooong way. But having seen some of your own postings, O'Stratified One, I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.
And besides; a little mystery isn't a bad thing, iz't?