More from the floor: Denali Wonder Lake Moose

I can see why this one got the ax. Although there are really no technical flaws, there really aren't any eye catching features either.

Looks you're making good progress on getting the floor cleaned up.

Hi Dick, I see what you are saying and I see what Tim is getting at too - but I can't help thinking that a slight boost in saturation and contrast would have this guy popping off the screen.

Tim Grams wrote:I can see why this one got the ax. Although there are really no technical flaws, there really aren't any eye catching features either.

It didn't make the first cuts because, as is so often the case, the image following it was more compelling.

Dick
Nice Moose image and certainly many of us would be thankful to have it.. I think the weather may have played a factor here, as this would be way over the top, I think, had the water been a nice blue color rather then gray.. Thanks for posting your images, helps us to see why people select keepers and seconds the way they do..

Dennis Olivero wrote:Dick
Nice Moose image and certainly many of us would be thankful to have it.. I think the weather may have played a factor here, as this would be way over the top, I think, had the water been a nice blue color rather then gray.. Thanks for posting your images, helps us to see why people select keepers and seconds the way they do..

Ouch! You don't get much blue water in glacier country, you betcha!

This was one of those troublesome shots that wasn't ready for prime time but not ready for the trash bin, either. What saves it is its sharpness and clarity of the rack. It is very unusual not to have any blown out highlights because any brightness in the sky would bounce off the rack in a New York minute, even on an overcast day! Ironically, this day was not terribly overcast. It's only because of that consideration that this crawled out of purgatory. Having said that, it does have potential editorial/commercial use nonetheless, especially with a crop off the top. Remember, just because something might not make good wall art does not mean it isn't saleable!

Dennis is so right about "the process." I think what happens is that when we get back from a shoot, we look for what I call the "Holy, sh*t!" shots. Those are the ones that grab us immediately and we know we're going to do something with them. Along the way we identify -- or should try to, anyway -- the obvious rejects. The troublesome ones are those that initially were not deemed ready for prime time but weren't candidates for the trash bin.

What I find is that in between shoots -- when the supply of first tier shots has run out -- that I start looking more critically at the "seconds." Many will ultimately get the delete key treatment, some will get the time needed to see whether they can make lemonade. Even then some will be deemed trash material. The purpose of this public exercise was to show the possibilities:

- some of the shots were as good if not better than the ones that survived the first cuts;

- others that don't may, like this one, have some potential or else we decided to keep they just because they're fun or even just because we like it.

Also, to illustrate the challenge further, there's a shot I posted in the landscape forum today which was shot on film. Looks pretty good on the light box but after I scanned it, I like the digital versions much more. That film shot will go in the trash but I posted it today because tomorrow I will post one of the digital versions which blows the chrome off the car.

Dick Ginkowski wrote:
You don't get much blue water in glacier country, you betcha!

Hey Dick,

On the contrary .. in 'glacier country', lakes, such as this one, go very blue -- more so, in fact, than lakes in 'no-glacier country'. Rivers, streams, creeks, etc will usually be the turgid, silty brown/grey that I think you're referencing. But when that water sits still, as in a lake, the silt settles and the glacial teal turns the lakes a very distinct blue-- hence the color 'teal'! Wonder Lake is a great example .. take a look at that body of water on a nice clear day (if you're ever fortunate enough to have one in Denali! ) and you'll see a very deep, rich blue.

Cheers

Carl

Nice! I would vote for more room at the bottom but fine as is. I wish my cuts were this good!

walkinman wrote:

Dick Ginkowski wrote:
You don't get much blue water in glacier country, you betcha!

Hey Dick,

On the contrary .. in 'glacier country', lakes, such as this one, go very blue -- more so, in fact, than lakes in 'no-glacier country'. Rivers, streams, creeks, etc will usually be the turgid, silty brown/grey that I think you're referencing. But when that water sits still, as in a lake, the silt settles and the glacial teal turns the lakes a very distinct blue-- hence the color 'teal'! Wonder Lake is a great example .. take a look at that body of water on a nice clear day (if you're ever fortunate enough to have one in Denali! ) and you'll see a very deep, rich blue.

Cheers

Carl

You are so technically correct! It's the glacier fed rivers that have that dirty milky appearance.

Nice job getting the detail and the balanced exposure in the moose. The flat gray water seriosly detracts from the overall appearance of the image but I can see where it may still have editorial or advertorial potential. Thanks for sharing your cutting your floor images and your thought processes behind their selection/non-selection.

If this were mine, I'd be happy to have a sharp, correctly exposed, frame-filling moose with a nice rack and water dripping off him. However, I'm glad that you have more compelling shots from this guy.

Dick,

I actually like the steel gray water with the warmer toned moose. A blue background would have been nice as well but this works. I would like to see the shots before and after that you said were more compelling.

Happy New Year!

Where was your flash at the time ??, Fill properly done could have made this a wonderful shot!! Indeed!!!