Canyon country

[Downrigger]

Nice to return to this community after a bit of a health setback this summer. Here's something for C&C: a view down the Paria River (Southern Utah) from one of the walls of its box canyon. Generally, I felt this was pretty successful, but plagued by 1. having "too much" in it and 2. difficulty obtaining scale (note river far below). Any thoughts on those - or problems I haven't seen? Thanks.

[chauncey]

1. having "too much" in it and 2. difficulty obtaining scale

Your self analysis is spot on...I've got a ton of those types before I started taking pictures of things.

[Downrigger]

Your self analysis is spot on...I've got a ton of those types before I started taking pictures of things.

Thanks... frank works. But it was a nice view - you think it just can't be "done" with photography?

[Mike Buckley]

I have to profoundly disagree with both of you about both including too much information and whatever issue you see about conveying depth of scale. My only criticism is that the sky in the top left area is overly polarized. My software didn't display most of your EXIF data, so I wonder if you were combining a polarizer and a focal length that was too short.

Mark: I hope you are on a quick rebound to good health if you haven't already gotten there.

[Downrigger]

Thanks Mike, very much. I'm in pretty good shape again, but taking less for granted.

You are right. Polarizer. I have resolved to no more place a polarizer on my 16-35... I had read that it is dumb, and now I am convinced.
I have to figure out how to export my photos from LR so the jpegs contain the EXIF - I like to see it in others' photos here, and so I need to get with the golden rule.

[Mike Buckley]

Using a polarizer probably won't be an issue if you are at the 35mm focal length, especially if you are not using a full-frame camera. Even so, keep using the polarizer outdoors in all compositions that don't include the sky.

[Downrigger]

Thanks again, Mike.
This was shot at 16mm on a full frame (D600) so that's the problem - I do have less trouble with polarization at longer focal lengths but for these crystal clear western skies, even then, the polarizer often deepens/darkens the hues to the point of suggesting some sort of post-apocalyptic unreality (like... What happened to the atmosphere?).
I'm interested that you suggest using it nonetheless, particularly without sky. I take it for increasing saturation/reducing glare?

[Mike Buckley]

I do have less trouble with polarization at longer focal lengths but for these crystal clear western skies, even then, the polarizer often deepens/darkens the hues to the point of suggesting some sort of post-apocalyptic unreality (like... What happened to the atmosphere?).

The issue that we initially discussed isn't that the blue part of the sky becomes too dark. The issue is that one part of the sky will look too light and the other part too dark when using a polarizer and a focal length that is too short.

The issue that you're now raising is very different and I know it quite well because I got so good at producing the problem for a period of time. That issue is simply that we have rotated the polarizer until the sky is too dark, perhaps at the darkest position of the polarizer. The solution, as Manfred mentioned recently in another thread, is to rotate the polarizer until the sky is the darkest and then back off that by about 1/8 of a turn or about 45 degrees. I think of the polarizer ring as a clock, so I reverse the position by what feels without looking to be about "ten minutes."

I'm interested that you suggest using it nonetheless, particularly without sky. I take it for increasing saturation/reducing glare?

If I understand everything correctly, you're not really increasing the saturation. Even so, it seems so due to an optical illusion resulting from reducing the glare.

[Downrigger]

Really helpful - and interesting.