Half Dome

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Nature Photography Image Critique : One Thread

I took this photo about three weeks ago in Yosemite National Park in California. Any and all comments are welcomed.

Joel Collins | jwc3@mindspring.com | http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3

-- Joel Collins (jwc3@mindspring.com), August 17, 1998

Answers

I would really like this if you'd have done a couple different things: A. Cropped about 65% of the image so that you only have the dome itself. B. Taken a longer exposure of the whole scene, and used a piece or cardboard or something to cover the sky/dome area for part of the time so that you could get some detail in the lower 1/2 of the photo [this is an imperfect technique though, lots of bracketing required!!]

Honestly, I'd really like this image if it were more concentrated on the dome itself [because the colors and tone you captured are amazing!], or if the entire scene were "visible" rather than masked in dark shadows. Maybe just taking the shot a half hour later (@sunrise) or earlier (@sunset) would have done the trick, though you might have not had the same color in the sky and on the dome.

A great try!

-- Jason Fobart (jfobart@usa.net), August 17, 1998.


Nice image and I like the composition. But the lower part of the photo is too dark. If you had not used any graduate filter, a 1 stop filter could have done wonders.

-- Wee Keng Hor (weekh@singnet.com.sg), August 18, 1998.

Judging from this JPEG image, I don't think a one-stop ND grad filter would have done much; I own the Tiffen 0.3ND and it's almost useless by itself (even with Velvia). You need a two or three stop ND grad filter to get any benefit (0.6 and 0.9ND respectively).

Compositionally, the bottom is a bit weak due to the lack of detail caused by insufficient light.

-- Sean Yamamoto (seany@altavista.net), August 18, 1998.


i don't agree that the foreground is too dark. the subject of this photo is half-dome and the dark foreground makes it stand out better.

-- richard mittleman (gon2foto@gte.net), August 18, 1998.

I think that cropping out the bottom leaves you with an outstanding square image.

-- Steve Leroux (steve@bigadventures.com), August 18, 1998.


I agree with cropping it square. There's nothing wrong with part of the image being dark, but this is just way too much.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), August 18, 1998.

If there is an interesting foreground, you sure can't see it. If this is from a print and there is detail in the negative, have it reprinted. Not much you can do other than to use a graduated ND filter if this is a slide. As it stands, cropping out all but the very bottom shadowed area would improve it.

As an aside, I find it very difficult to judge photos of subjects like this. We've all seen absolutely stunning photographs of Half Dome, El Capitan, the Tetons, etc. taken by numerous photographers. I find myself comparing new photos to the standards of these other photos rather than judging a photo on its own (perhaps considerable) merits. It's like trying to compare the basketball skills of Micheal Jordan to Dale Ellis. Being one of ~400 NBA players, Dale is a better basketball player than 99.999% of us. But he pales in comparison to Micheal, so Dale is a "solid" but not outstanding player.

I like this photo. You waited until you got some nice light, which is half the battle. It's just that I can't help thinking I've seen better.

-- Paul Tsong (tsong.p@ghc.org), August 18, 1998.


I like the photo and think most of the above criticism are ill founded or just plan unfair. Its colors and the light are very pleasing -- the repetition and progression of shapes of the dome and midground ridge with the foreground tree make a very compelling and pleasing composition. My monitor shows a lot of subtle detail in the dark foreground areas while the black silhouette of the tree is a very powerful counterpoint to the visually dominate Half Dome. All and all, the photo works extremely well in terms of visual content and composition in a very effective, unconventional way. Many of the above suggestions, such as croping to a square, would serve to make it look more like a snapshot. I have just read two books by Galen Rowell, (Mountain Light and Art as Adventure) this shot would not be out of place in either book.

-- Lester LaForce (102140.1200@compuserve.com), August 19, 1998.

Thanks to all of you for your feedback. Here's some info on this one. This image was shot from Glacier Point in Yosemite NP at sunset. I used Fuji Velvia in a Nikon 6006 and a Nikon 70-210 lens. No filters were used. I also shot this scene with my Pentax 67, but I can't scan those transparecies yet.

The slide was scanned on a Polaroid SprintScan 35. The scan is a little bit darker than the slide, but it's not too far off. Several reviewers said I should lighten the bottom portion of the image. I will consider it, but overall I like the image as it is shown here. I tend to shoot a lot of B&W, so I am used to seeing large dark areas in my photos.

One reviewer said that this image would not look out of place in a Galen Rowell book. Thank you, that's very kind. If any publishers out there agree, send me some e-mail! :-)

I'll post a few more images over the next few weeks. Again, thanks for the feedback.

Joel Collins | jwc3@mindspring.com | http://www.mindspring.com/~jwc3

-- Joel Collins (jwc3@mindspring.com), August 19, 1998.


I like it...... quite a bit in fact. I would love to see it at 20x24 if it were shot with MF gear. I am always wanting tons of clouds when I am stumbling about the desert around here capturing images...but I prefer a cloudless sky in this shot. The lack of clouds allows my eye to go right to Half Dome, then walk around in the yummy dark foreground for nifty things going on there.


-- Don Carter (carter-graphics@pobox.com), August 19, 1998.



I agree with Paul, nice as this photo may be, there are sooo many excellent photos of half dome already...

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), August 27, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ