Sierra High Country, au naturale; C&C

JC

Glaciated high Sierra, i think of these as landscape nudes.

Similar scenes in landscape and portrait mode. C&C welcome. Minimal processing, just straightening and a little bit of linear level adjustment and a standard sharpening.

The verticals didn't work out as well as I hoped.

Funny thing about these 3, when i first saw them I really liked them. The more I stare at them, the less entranced I am.

1) See hiker in lower right for scale. Our eventual route took us up the valley on the left, and through a pass just out of view.



2) Portrait




3) Wasn't sure if I should crop out the two big rocks in the bottom or not.

David_S85

I like #2 and #3. Not too sure about the first, as it looks less dimensional than the later two; the hiker adds to the composition. Maybe add more contrast and a darker sky to #1? Keep the rocks in 3, as it adds a 3-D feel. You've got a white border on the bottom left showing on the third. The portrait orientation gives the subject more height and depth.

Looking at #2 more closely... I like the rock in the lower left, but not the sloping sandy colored ground in the lower right. That rock is the more dominant. Perhaps a 2:3 crop eliminating the sloped ground and a bit of the sky to concentrate and enforce the features more?

JC

David_S85 wrote: »

I like #2 and #3. Not too sure about the first, as it looks less dimensional than the later two; the hiker adds to the composition. Maybe add more contrast and a darker sky to #1? Keep the rocks in 3, as it adds a 3-D feel. You've got a white border on the bottom left showing on the third. The portrait orientation gives the subject more height and depth.
?

Thanks,


Yeah, I had to straighten the verticals, we were hurrying a bit to get up into the intermediate cirque to set up camp, I missed that on the crop.

We had the weirdest light. It was the weirdest weather I've ever seen in the Sierras. Not big fluffy orographic clouds from the west rising up over the crest, instead they were these low level clouds just creeping over the landscape from the northeast, few clouds to our south, some weird circling monsoonal flow. There were few shadows right then to give that depth.

Here's a digital grad ND, with a sigmoid curve.



and going surreal on the sky.

kdog

Awesome. Reminds me of White Pocket in AZ. I thought the sky was fine the way it was in #1. My wife walked by while I was looking at these and stopped to remark about them. She's normally pretty jaded on landscapes, so that says something. May I ask where this is?

JC

kdog wrote: »

Awesome. Reminds me of White Pocket in AZ. I thought the sky was fine the way it was in #1. My wife walked by while I was looking at these and stopped to remark about them. She's normally pretty jaded on landscapes, so that says something. May I ask where this is?

Thank you. This is the Miter basin between Horseshoe meadows and Mt. Whitney. We took the long way.

It's definitely starker than most landscapes. Not for everyone, but I love the high country.

The sky was modified along with the skyline when i was deepening the blacks to try to add in some depth as recommended by David. I didn't want to mask the sky and the rocks separately. The shadows in the cliffs are really subtle though.

kdog

RBeattie

high sierra
My vote is for #2, the vertical. This one draws me in. The contrast of the grass and water to the mountains is great! It makes my eyes travel from the bottom to the top of the image.

Cornflake

I like the first and third ones very much, and I like the revised processing on the third. With the first one, I'd consider cropping off the bottom fifth, but it's good either way.

JC

RBeattie wrote: »

My vote is for #2, the vertical. This one draws me in. The contrast of the grass and water to the mountains is great! It makes my eyes travel from the bottom to the top of the image.

Thanks, I was hoping for flowery meadows, but alas, that was not to be this year, little snow, and summer came early. At least that meant our passes were snow free, other years in July they aren't, necessarily.

Cornflake wrote: »

I like the first and third ones very much, and I like the revised processing on the third. With the first one, I'd consider cropping off the bottom fifth, but it's good either way.

I thought about that crop, but then I lose the backpacker. I guess printed out small, that crop would work best, but printed out large enough to see the backpacker, maybe the crop as is.

Thanks for the comments.