Critique Photo archeology

Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
1,252
Location
Tucson, AZ U.S.A.
I was going over some old shots and I found a few that I never processed for one reason or another. It's always interesting to do that because you can get a different perspective on older photos, and of course your processing skillset will change over time as well. Here are two from two separate trips to New Mexico:

#1: Bandolier National Monument
166741739.EOh9hoNp.Jagged.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I was never quite able to find a good way to portray the fascinating rock formations at this park. It didn't help that we were rushing through (my travel companions for some reason were not interested in standing in the same spot for hours working on a photo). After looking back through my photos though, this one showed some promise.

#2: San Francisco de Asis Church in Taos
166742233.ilnujHI1.The_Test_of_Time.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This shot was kind of a throw away shot that I took as I walked around. There were other more abstract photos that I was more keen on finishing up. After some time though as I was looking through these old shots, I thought there might be some drama yet in the photo with the right treatment, so here you are.

As always, CC are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Dave
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
30,752
Location
SW Virginia
Well done, Dave, especially the last one. I think the first one could benefit from lightening the shadows a bit. I've been to Bandelier National Monument many times but I can't picture where that scene could be.

The second one is just about perfect as is, I think.
 
Joined
Oct 4, 2017
Messages
6,070
Location
Kuşadası / Turkey
Hi Dave. I loved both of them. I would only lift the very dark shadows ( the holes on the lower left) selectively in #1, as the overall brightness looks good to me.
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
1,252
Location
Tucson, AZ U.S.A.
I appreciate all of the comments. I'll have to play with the shadows in #1 a little. I think you guys might be right and they could use a bit of a bump.

Thanks,

Dave
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom