Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Red Rocks Canyon SP  (Read 704 times)
tom w
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« on: May 16, 2012, 04:06:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if there is too much going on here.
Logged
Timprov
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19



« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2012, 04:59:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think there's enough going on here.
Logged
shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 490


« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2012, 05:13:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Geologically speaking, you've captured a variety of the dynamic that makes this area.
Logged
popnfresh
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2012, 08:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

It needs John Wayne and an Apache war party to make it really interesting.  Cheesy  Cheesy  Cheesy
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 801


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2012, 08:11:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The sky lacks interest, and we are unfortunately trained to require clouds. Whether or not it really needs visual interest to be formally well composed is beside the point, the trope is so ingrained that clouds are mandatory. So, if you're there on a cloudless day, you've typically got a problem.

There's no visual center, the eye not led anywhere, it seems to be just a bunch of (admittedly attractive) rocks. The light's not bad, even though the image feels a bit flat. I am pretty sure the flatness is actually compositional, not due to the light, even though my first reaction was 'the light is terrible'. The light's quite nice, in fact.

It feels like you were maybe going for a negative space/positive space thing, which isn't a bad idea given the cloudless sky, but I think you needed to do something else. Maybe more sky (negative space), or try for some sort of graphical effect (a yin/yang look of sky against ground, or some similar "shape-based" approach), or just get a lot closer so we have a single strong rock or formation to get a grip on?
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6297



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2012, 08:13:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Belongs in a geology textbook, Tom. We can do one together. I can contribute shots of dikes, volcanic plugs, hogbacks, etc., from South Park and other parts of the Front Range.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2012, 03:39:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Belongs in a geology textbook, Tom. We can do one together. I can contribute shots of dikes, volcanic plugs, hogbacks, etc., from South Park and other parts of the Front Range.



Dikes/dykes - those are trigger words, Russ, to be used with caution.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6297



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2012, 10:29:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Rob, but a dike is very different from a dyke.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2012, 12:11:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Rob, but a dike is very different from a dyke.


Not in a flood!

But anyway, whether using U.S. or U.K. spellings, they can be the same thing to the pure of heart and mind. I think I almost made that category at one time. Pure of heart and mind, I mean, not the other, obviously, in either language. Did you know that there was this heroic little boy in the Low Countries who reputedly (if not repeatedly), stuck his finger into one of them and saved a grateful country from disaster? Little boys can get away with murder, as I seem to remember.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 12:16:50 PM by Rob C » Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad