Grand Canyon

so beautiful, my favorite of yours

The sunlit foreground tree destroys what is otherwise an excellent photo.

i wish this was larger, such a vast scene with such gorgeous light and i have to squint to see the detail. What i can see is luscious! i have looked at your other two images and think a bit of contrast adjustment to the digitalized image would really bring them to life. This one looks great, just too small...regards: kat~

Thanks for all of the comments; David, your comment is helpful... Interestingly, I stood there for 15 minutes to wait for the sun to light that tree. :~) In the print, it really makes the picture... it is much more burned-in though. I am not a good scanner and I don\\\'t use photoshop to \\\"over digitalize\\\". After all, we are dedicted to analog photography aren\\\'t we? Kathleen, so that you can see the detail, I would be glad to trade you a nice mounted copy for something of yours.

um...well...since my digital cart went way before my analog horse i'm hardly in a position to condemn the digital darkroom. However, i will say that, to my knowlege, the very act of converting an analog image to digital implies some loss of image quality that bears rectifying if only for the purpose of viewing on the screen. So, i'm a bit confused...you sacrifice detail and range by scanning to digital and yet refuse to compensate digitally for that loss lest you "overdigitalize" the image. Seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. But ok, it's your decision As far as trading images, i am learning analog...my prints arn't even fit for recycling right now, but if you ever see one you particularly like, just holler and i'll send you a print, k? regards: kat~

I don\'t know... I kinda like the one of the \"steps and the window\" that you currently have displayed (a nice print of that would look good in my gallery)... The point that you raise, vis-a-vis digital, is clearly a conumdrum for me... I personally want to focus my time in the field with my camera and in my \"wet\" darkroom; yet, the opportunity to display my analog work widely through this digital medium is clearly an opportunity. When you use digital technology to display analog work there are so many variables that to try and control them all is a challenge (at least for me). For instance, I have 3 computers, and on each one of them the pictures look differently. I guess the point that I didn\'t articulate too well is that I try to make the best scan that I can, I then do some minor photoshop work to make it look as close to the print as I can; then I upload it. Even after all that effort, it still doesn\'t look like the print. I do believe that I display enough to get a decent critique from my fellow APUGERS. I view a \"trade\" as a joint opportunity to get my work \"out there\" and to collect some good works of others that I can use to decorate my gallery. Having said all that, there nothing I detest more than my fellow APUGers who do these \"negative scans\". A digital image from a negative scan is not the same as doing the hardwork of printing one in the darkroom. I will take your advice and put a little more attention to detail in my electronic presentation.

I imagine the print just sings!

Yes, this is a very nice image. Regarding the foreground trees, I made a similar photograph once in the sense that I placed a very bright area at the bottom of the composition that was not the subject of the shot at all. The (very capable) critiquer suggested that the problem with it was that it was serving as an area of great contrast which pulled the eye too strongly away from the subject rather than aiding in bringing the viewer into the more important area. I think this is a factor in this 'graph as well. Of course, if you've decided that the tree(s) are of equal importance to the dark tree against the canyon light, then they're fine as is.