I like these. Foxes are fun critters to photograph. Whenever I see a fox, it always seems to pose for the camera.

Thanks for participating in the discussion.

I guess I have a couple of looks, and it depends upon the subject. For terrestrial wildlife, I prefer my "faux studio" look. For birds in flight with a clear blue sky, I prefer my path of light (which I have talked about, before). There are a few steps I'll take, no matter what the subject is, if I'm going into Photoshop. I will always have some, subtle vignette, and I will almost always do some color grading. I don't always use the same gradient, though. I will experiment with several, before settling on one I like.

Thanks! That is what I do. But I'd also like a given photo to have a somewhat broad appeal. If I like it, but I'm in the only one who does (assuming a significant sample of reviewers), then I might need to figure out a better way to get my message across. All the constructive criticism aids in that ongoing effort.

Wow! Thanks a lot!

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Each comment is useful, whether I think it applies to this photo, or to others I will take, in the future.

I did, for example, address the annoying processing artifact between the bright sky and the rock. I do care about that sort of thing, and I'm a bit annoyed that I missed it. I also tried cropping, to eliminate the buildings on the right. I could go either way, on that one. By leaving them in, it is as if the mythical stegosaurus tail fades into the landscape. By cropping out the buildings, the tail ends, but those last, little "plates" are gone, minimizing the effect of the fading tail. I grant, though, that I may be the only one who thinks of this natural structure as a stegosaurus tail.

As to whether there is too much sky, well, I happen to like the way the clouds work, so I'd opt to leave that sky the way it is, except for the small amount that is removed by cropping out the buildings, yet keeping the same aspect ratio. One person suggested that all that bright area, in the sky, is what attracts the eye, first, and that took attention away from the subject, which is the Backbone. That one is going to take some thinking. Personally, I love the fact that the rock formation, on the left side, is somewhat in shadow, but if the white in the sky is grabbing the viewer's attention, and not letting go, then that area has to be addressed.

All this food for thought is terrific. I really appreciate everyone who took the time.

Thanks to everyone. Now, I have to figure out how to incorporate all of this useful criticism into that shot. But first, I have to let Old Man Par beat me into submission, today. (Old Man Par always wins. I must be a glutton for punishment.)

Believe it or not, I worked on that area. I thought I had it fixed, but it would appear I didn’t. I created a smaller version of this shot, and I suspect I may have looked at that, and decided I fixed it. Oops. Thanks for the catch.

Thanks to you both!

You can certainly offer critique. I always welcome that.

This is a landscape shot, and I could have put it in that section, but an important part of the finished product has as much to do with post processing as it does with creating the raw shot, in the first place.

If I happen to take a photo that really speaks to me, I will put it through its paces in Photoshop. Most keeper shots just get Lightroom treatment, but the ones with real potential get the chance to shine. At first, the vast majority of the shots that I thought warranted the Photoshop treatment were wildlife shots. I found that I was not content simply to present a tack sharp, nicely balanced capture of a wild animal. It had to have more.

After a while, it dawned on me that I was trying to create shots that appeared as if they were studio shots, yet could not possibly be studio shots. That was an interesting challenge.

Lately, I've been trying to develop some skills in the area of landscape photography. I feel I'm making some progress when I take a shot that begs to be sent to Photoshop. (I don't go to Photoshop to save a shot. That's usually a waste of time.) I took such a shot, today. The area is called The Devil's Backbone. It looks like a gargantuan Stegosaurus died, face down, and its body petrified, leaving a miles long ridge with enormous plates growing out of it.

When I finished with Photoshop, I liked the result, but the interesting bit was what I realized, when I finished. This shot has many of the same qualities of those faux studio wildlife shots I mentioned, and that was intentional. It dawned on me that I had been trying to create finished works that looked as if they were shot on film, rather than digital. I did not start out trying to do this -- I was trying to create things I liked. I have no notions, whatsoever, what attributes any given type of film would impart to a photograph. I just have, in the back of my mind, a somewhat vague notion of what a quality, artistic film shot would look like.

Such a shot would focus on feeling, rather than sharpness and clarity, unless those qualities happened to support the feeling, in the shot. In this shot, I could have stressed the clinical sharpness of the rock formations, but I felt that, to stress the power and immensity of the rock formations, much of that detail had to remain in the shadows. That seemed to coincide with the feeling of power coming from the clouds, as well.

Anyway, when I was finished, I thought it had more of a film feel than a digital feel. Those of you with extensive film experience might say I'm all wet, and I can handle that.

(Download)

That view is simply beautiful, and your photo does it justice. A terrific capture.

Thanks, all!

The meadow had no wildlife that we could see. There is a Bighorn crossing, on the other side of the meadow, but no Bighorn were using it. Outside the park, we did manage to see a few, but none with impressive horns. In other areas, there were elk and mule deer.

Thanks, all! It was a good day to go. Snow is expected, in that area, this afternoon.

Thanks, all!

Loveland Pass is a lot farther away from us than Estes Park is. Estes Park is the entrance to RMNP that is closest to the city of Loveland.

Good Friday was an absolutely beautiful day, so we decided to take the short drive up to Rocky Mountain National Park. We are only about 45 minutes away, and it is a very pleasant drive. I wanted to capture a scene that combined the day's brilliant blue sky, set against the pure white, snow covered mountains, and the greening landscape. Of course, those views are everywhere, but one is often looking up at the mountains. I wanted to be (more or less) level with the mountains, which meant I had to go higher. I thought this was the perfect place to get what I wanted. The valley, below us, gives me the height I wanted.

(Download)

It looks a lot like sensor dust, to me. Whenever I get sensor dust, it looks just like that does. Locking the mirror up, and blowing air from a pocket rocket, has always done the trick for me, except once. That time, I had to clean the sensor with a swab.