Whip This

[Danspage]

Back from a recent trip to Arches Nat Park.

http://danspage.smugmug.com/photos/217497885-XL.jpg
" Critical Balance 180' Off "
This Abstract may be one of my best photos from my trip to Arches Nat Park in Utah . I was about 180 deg.off from the Photo I researched. I am glad I could not remember the exact look of the photo that someone else took. I It's hard to come up with a different Photo from such a famous landmark, Delicate Arch. The title came from the fact that from where I was standing you had to have Critical Balance and I was 180 Deg. off from the Photo I researched.

Whip It!

[TheMightyZog]

Ah never seen it from that angle - very interesting, but to be honest I prefer the convention shot.

However, I find the underside (black) bit of the arch a bit distracting and although I just love saturated colours, I feel the top sky might just be a tad too dark.

I think an early morning shot would have been kinder to the the shadows - so that's an excuse for going back to this lovely area!

I did the research when I went there years ago - took the conventional evening shot, only to find I had forgotten a torch to find my way back to the campsite! I've learnt my lesson now.

[Danspage]

Thanks for the whip.

The reason you haven't seen it from this angle is you have to be a nut to carry a backpack full of stuff and your Camera at the end of the extended tripod on that slope.

Your Web is great lots of good info for a newbie.

I have reworked the file to see if I can get closer to what it did look like to the eye. Saturation was not used through the Sat. tool. I used levels and selective color and a quick sharpening.
How this?
http://danspage.smugmug.com/photos/219666326-L.jpghttp://danspage.smugmug.com/photos/219760755-L-0.jpg

2nd photo is a new rework

[broby6]

I like the rework better. The arch looks more complete and the sky is more believable. In the original if you didn't know it was an arch you might not have guessed. The colors are great. Your effort to get a new take on this is commendable.

broby6

[TheMightyZog]

Oh yes - so much better.
Can I be a bit of anit-picker and ask for the toning at the top of the arch (and in it's main body) to be more like the original - some of the tones have become a bit washed out - but no2 has my vote.
I was never as reckles as you and I think it was worth the effort.

Thanks for your kind words

[Danspage]

Oh yes - so much better.
Can I be a bit of anit-picker and ask for the toning at the top of the arch (and in it's main body) to be more like the original - some of the tones have become a bit washed out - but no2 has my vote.
I was never as reckles as you and I think it was worth the effort.

Thanks for your kind words

I think I got It.

(the post law is going to kick me)____:bowhttp://danspage.smugmug.com/photos/219760755-L-0.jpg

[TheMightyZog]

I think I got It.

Yes!

Is that a dead white pixel in the 2nd band of rock, or just the results of scaling?

Although your shot is special, pictorially do you like my conventional shot
http://www.broadhurst-family.co.uk/lefteye/MainPages/album/1-Favourites/slides/DelicateArch.html
(taken in the good old day of slides)
or do you still prefer yours?

[Felicia]

Am I the only one who sees a Kelpie kissing a rock formation?

Oh. The critique... uh... I like your last version the best. The sky looks more realistic, and you've brought the needed shadows back.

I also really like your different perspective. That's the kind of shooter I want to be - someone who sees something others didn't. Cool!

[Danspage]

Yes!

Is that a dead white pixel in the 2nd band of rock, or just the results of scaling?

Although your shot is special, pictorially do you like my conventional shot
http://www.broadhurst-family.co.uk/lefteye/MainPages/album/1-Favourites/slides/DelicateArch.html
(taken in the good old day of slides)
or do you still prefer yours?

Sorry gone for a wile . Thats the rock I think.
Dan