# "DESIERTO DE LA MARAVILLA"  DESERT OF WONDER



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

Yes another extreme photo. HDR of Picacho Peak + CS5 + TOPAZ + NIK = "DESIERTO DE LA MARAVILLA"  DESERT OF WONDER

I know I will be asked, Why, because I like to and have free time right now, never hurts to keep practicing editing. 

Please no comments about why you don't like HDR, or this is not what HDR is for, or you get it right out of the camera so no need to.........

If you like the style let me know if you don't let me know with a reason such as don't like desert landscapes, composition sucks..... but not colors are fake its not natural, I know this and 
my editing was not meant to be natural but surreal. 




desert of wonder picacho peak by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

How about that it's a bad HDR?



I don't see good tonal transition in the sky. This would say to me that there are too few steps in your exposure, or something went wrong in post. What were your exposure times?

Also is that lens flare added after the fact?


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

The actual HDR is fine and has correct tone in the sky look at my post trip to Phoenix .This is just more of a graphical edit for pure pleasure.Lens flare was added via cs5


----------



## COLTSFANATIC1 (Dec 21, 2011)

I like it, the only thing I would have to nit pic is the lens flare, it seems as if you took this from behind a window as you can see the entire lens reflection, was this intended to be there? I still say great shot


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

The color grading here seems a bit too steep for my taste, not that it's bad in itself, just taken a bit too far IMO. Their is definitely some chunky transitions in the sky, not exactly banding, but close - does Photomatix (or whatever you're using for tone mapping) output true 16-bit images? Usually tone-mapped images are in 8-bit, which is one big reason I don't like tone mapping.

I really, really don't like the lens flare, and find it very distracting. I feel like my eye already has a tendency to be drawn there, with the flare I'm just lead in all the more. Overall, I prefer your original.

Compositionally-speaking, I don't think the scrub frames the image well, but rather divides it leaving a big, empty, bright space in the lower right corner. Many people tend to read an image from left to right and then diagonally back to the lower left corner. Not having anything here and having it divided kind of traps the eye with nothing to look at. Make sense?


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

I get what your both saying about the lens flare.


----------



## ann (Dec 21, 2011)

The framing on this and your previous photo leaves me cold. I am not a fan, as it distracts my eye from the important part of photo, the image it's self. Find the sun drawing my eye *the brain can't help it, it goes to white* and it stays there. Am sure this is not what you wish people to view, *only the sun.*


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

Framing mIght be much , good cc thanks


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 21, 2011)

Gotta go the other way -- I like everything about it, including the composition, lens flare and framing.  It's obviously interpretive (as opposed to realistic), and it's consistent with your emerging style.  Very striking.  I went back and looked at the original, and with a little work, it makes a sweet B&W, too.


----------



## ann (Dec 21, 2011)

And now we have why it is so difficult to critique, the human element


----------



## Bynx (Dec 21, 2011)

Not that it makes any difference but i dont like the small inside border either. The black one is ok but the inside one doesnt do anything to improve the image but just keeps drawing my eyes away from the scene. And the black border could probably be half as thick. Keep it delicate since the main focus is the scenery.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 21, 2011)

Ann's point is well taken.  I doesn't do much good to just say "I like it" or "I don't like it", so I'll add a little more.  Looking at the original on Flickr, this is obviously a dramatic scene.  But standard processing doesn't bring out the drama.  You have to massage the image to bring out its qualities.  An assertive HDR is one way to go.  B&W is the other.  The individual elements are arranged in what artist Barbara Nuss calls a "three spot" composition.  The bush on the lower right is spot 1, the bush on the left is spot 2 and the dark hill in the distance is spot 3.  The eye moves from 1 to 2 to 3 -- zig-zagging front to back, not left to right.  It also moves toward the light, which in the case has been added behind the distant hill.  The sky elements all point to this focal point, as well.  So, compositionally it works.  I like the added tension of all of the compositional elements conspiring to draw your eye to a light that's so bright you feel like you have to shield your eyes.  

But, the problem with a center-weighted image like this is at the margins -- the eye wants to run out of the frame.  In this case, the added framing acts like a fence to keep the eye in the photo. I think it's used more successfully here than in the OP's previous rock photo.  

I agree with the comment about the banding.  I don't know what the OP is using for post-processing, but if you're going to be this aggressive, you'd better be working in 16-bit.  You can do a lot with an image saved that way before it starts coming apart.  Finally, I always stress getting the Levels and Contrast/Brightness correct before hitting the Hue/Saturation controls.  That will help keep the image from fluorescing out of control.


----------



## ann (Dec 21, 2011)

good point about the frame, how about some vignetting?  We pull in the edges all the time in the darkroom. It has to be delicately done., but it works.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> Ann's point is well taken.  I doesn't do much good to just say "I like it" or "I don't like it", so I'll add a little more.  Looking at the original on Flickr, this is obviously a dramatic scene.  But standard processing doesn't bring out the drama.  You have to massage the image to bring out its qualities.  An assertive HDR is one way to go.  B&W is the other.  The individual elements are arranged in what artist Barbara Nuss calls a "three spot" composition.  The bush on the lower right is spot 1, the bush on the left is spot 2 and the dark hill in the distance is spot 3.  The eye moves from 1 to 2 to 3 -- zig-zagging front to back, not left to right.  It also moves toward the light, which in the case has been added behind the distant hill.  The sky elements all point to this focal point, as well.  So, compositionally it works.  I like the added tension of all of the compositional elements conspiring to draw your eye to a light that's so bright you feel like you have to shield your eyes.
> 
> But, the problem with a center-weighted image like this is at the margins -- the eye wants to run out of the frame.  In this case, the added framing acts like a fence to keep the eye in the photo. I think it's used more successfully here than in the OP's previous rock photo.
> 
> I agree with the comment about the banding.  I don't know what the OP is using for post-processing, but if you're going to be this aggressive, you'd better be working in 16-bit.  You can do a lot with an image saved that way before it starts coming apart.  Finally, I always stress getting the Levels and Contrast/Brightness correct before hitting the Hue/Saturation controls.  That will help keep the image from fluorescing out of control.



I am really glad you took the time to really look at this photo in depth. You hit it on the nail on why I chose to add the framing. In both this one and the other one I did it was to keep your eyes in the picture and make it feel like you are looking into it rather that just apart of it. Somewhat a shadow box effect. The editing I did was to really bring out the elements that I thought needed to be pushed and make it feel like it was more than just a landscape. When I am doing HDR imaging I like the realistic look in some cases but what has drawn me in more than not is the artificial methods that are used to make you feel like your looking at another world where there are no rules. I think what you have said is well put and I think you understand me as an artist. I think for the first time on this forum someone looked into my photography and method more in depth and saw past the clear lines of basic photography. I know I have a lot to learn and what not but I am trying very hard to do this and do it well.

I thank all you for your CC I really think it is helping me!


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

yes. that's what i meant to say. it's perfect. completely perfect. in fact, that lens flare is really starting to grow on me. good job, it's perfect. no need for improvements here.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

unpopular said:


> yes. that's what i meant to say. it's perfect. completely perfect. in fact, that lens flare is really starting to grow on me. good job, it's perfect. no need for improvements here.



dont have to be a smart a$$ all the time do you?


----------



## Bynx (Dec 21, 2011)

I warned you before Vip he is a dickhead and only looking for trouble. Just ignore him. Better yet use the IGNORE button and you wont hear from him again.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

Bynx - I have tried not to respond in any way that would allow for room for him to act out  or use words against me but,  I agree its impossible. Some folks just look for trouble. 

Where is the ignore button? I think I will take you up on that and use it.:thumbup:


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

No need to use the ignore button, I'm done replying. You're an arrogant child whose images lack substance and consequence which wouldn't be at all bad except for your refuses to listen to anything other than praise. I'm not the first one to accuse you of being unable to accept criticism. Perhaps you ought to listen.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 21, 2011)

OK big boy your tha man! You got me, oh how I need your help or I will not find my way around the click button. 

I took praise fine, did not argue or act out. I agreed and saw peoples points and will apply them as I see fit. Whats your problem were you born an a$$hole? Praise is good and its not always the bad CC that helps people grow. I think there are two people that I have really had any issues with you and another and both of you have similar personalities so easy to call out the bad and name call showing lack of maturity. I think this forum has to many chiefs and not enough indians.

I did not realize you invented photography and wrote all the rules, perhaps you can sell me your book of how to take a picture for dummies, make sure you sign it so its worth more as you become famous! Be sure to include many of your bland flat  pictures of black and white pictures of weeds in there ok.

Thanks


----------



## Bynx (Dec 21, 2011)

You click on their name, then look at View Profile on the left side of your screen. Three down from the top is Add to Ignore List.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 21, 2011)

criticizing the subject is so pedestrian.


----------



## MatteoSaeed (Dec 22, 2011)

Def. not a bad one, but needs more tone-mapping


----------

