Shot on Velvia, Canon EOS 620 with 100-300L, actual focal length unknown, approx f/16 and about 1/30 sec.

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), March 23, 1999

Answers

Frank, I am not sure if it was the scan or slide, but the moon seems out of range of the depth of field. I am assuming this was a single exposure shot, but I would suggest trying this shot as a double exposure. this way both subject items will be sharp. I like the composition, but I think I would also like to see a the same shot from a little further back if that is possible.

-- James Fazio (triathlete@vt.edu), March 23, 1999.

The expanse of blue leaves me having a hard time connecting the rock at the top to the rock at the bottom. It's an interesting composition but it doesn't quite click for me, but then, I have never attempted anything similar.

-- Garry Schaefer (schaefer@pangea.ca), March 24, 1999.

I like the blue and yellow colors, the shapes, and the earth / space comparison. But that little patch of blue in upper left bothers me. Cropping helps but I'd rather see another band of blue at top to emphasize arch shape. I also think previous comments about reducing the gap and enlarging the moon would be helpful. Larry Korhnak

-- Larry Korhnak (lvk@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu), March 24, 1999.

Frank,
In all honesty, there is a little too much "dead" blue space for my liking. If the arch were smaller, i.e. more of it in the frame, maybe this would be better. Maybe if you backed off a little? Still, a good idea.

-- Joe Cheatwood (cheatwoo@ufl.edu), March 24, 1999.

James,

It looks like the sharpening filter did violence to the moon! It is quite sharp, as are the rocks.

The little bit of blue in the upper left is the only visual clue that this is an arch, so I think it is necessary.

As to the size of the moon, I have numerous other takes on this image and some of them do have larger moons (and no ground rocks, either). They look good in their own ways, but I still find this image satisfying.

When I first submitted a similar image (with no sky above the arch) to Gallery 9 for membership, the one thing I remember was the jury handling the print and turning it upside-down and at various angles trying to figure it out. The one guess as to the composition was that it was a reflection, but most of the members held it with the rocks on the bottom until I explained the situation. This image doesn't suffer from that particular "problem".

Thaks for your comments.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), March 24, 1999.

I find it an equally appealing image with the bottom third cropped off.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), March 27, 1999.

Paul,

That is, indeed, one of the other versions I shot that morning; the one I mentioned in a previous note that was manhandled by the members of Gallery 9 trying to figure it out. There were all kinds of possibilities in this situation and think I covered most of them with the equipment I had on hand. Maybe, I'll show some of the other versions, too.

Frank

-- Frank Kolwicz (bb389@lafn.org), March 27, 1999.