I hope the size of this image in't too big for your screens! I have no way to re-size it to fit better. My apologies in advance for any inconvenience in viewing, but they've finally put up my new images at comartists.com and I couldn't wait.

The original is on Kodachrome 25 (the colors are so washed out by the dust storm and backlight it's hard to tell even on the original that it's in color), done with a Canon 620 and EF28-80L, probably at around 28mm. Exposure data not recorded, but probably f/11 or so and around 1/15th sec. on a tripod, of course. This is one of about 20 frames I shot of this scene.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), December 29, 1998

Answers

I think the image has been mangled by the scanner; it is rather flat.

-- Matthew Francey (mdf@my-dejanews.com), December 30, 1998.

I like that this image is rather flat, Mattew. Frank has chose it among 20 others and I think to know the reason.

The comprehension is often reached through the dimming of the things, when what we saw clearly became some sonfused...

Not always a fine photo is fine.

Carlo.

-- Carlo Folli (c.folli@rsadvnet.it), December 30, 1998.

I suspect that this is a knockout picture that, as the other response noted, has not been done justice by the scan. I like the subtle gradiations in the distance that make it very mysterious. It's too bad that the vertical format won't allow it to be posted larger.

-- Mike Green (mgprod@mindspring.com), December 30, 1998.

I take it from your description of the shot that this is more or less an accurate depiction of the image, so....

I have a real problem with the large white area with no detail, its where my eye goes first everytime, but there is nothing there to hold my interest.

The horizon ( as percieved) is smack dab in the middle, and worse yet with white up top with no detail and black below with no detail. I know what you are trying to accomplish here with the back lighting, but it just doesn't work in this situation. I also think that I detect a bit of a flare in the middle.

I also have a real problem with the near and far peaks that are at the middle right, they are way too close to each other vertically, the best solution would have been to get at a higher position or at least go low to keep them from intersecting.

Mark

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), December 30, 1998.

Mark,

The horizon that I percieve is the large step of the near mesa and that is well above center. The distant, hazy buttes and mesas don't make as much impression on me, so the image doesn't seem quite so static. As to the near merge of the fore and background mesas, I think they do separate just enough to be passable and one of my intended visual elements was the repetition of the mesas's outlines and elevations. Having the two come so close visually was a big part of my idea for making the image.

True, a lot of definition was lost in the sky and in the lower canyon due to the scan and the intermediate processes. If the original was this bad, I'd can it. You can, at least, get an impression of what I intended from this view. The original (even the print) has enough detail in the lower dark area of the canyon to show some of the shrubby plants and enough in the sky to keep my interest, at least. The effect of the dust on the image is just like fog, the difference is that dust will eat up your gear faster.

Winds at the time were a steady 50+ mph with gusts. I waited 2 days for conditions to subside before I finally got so frustrated I just went out and shot what I could. One gust caught me near the lip of a canyon at Deadhorse Point and forced me to lay myself and the camera and tripod down briefly.

Now that I am reviewing the scanned image, I wonder if I didn't post the thumbnail by mistake. I'll have to go back and check.

Thanks for your comments.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), December 31, 1998.

To show depth in the image, I think you need to have a bit more separation between the front and back mesas. The (almost) merger on the right side of the image doesn't work for me, at least. But that is merely my opinion.

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), December 31, 1998.

I guess dust is desert fog. I like it, but I have a weakness for fog shots. My major complaint is the lack of detail in the foreground.

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), January 05, 1999.