Good observation, I was noticing those stones today myself. I don’t think they had any function, but I’m not sure. I didn’t approach any closer than you see from the picture, in fact I cropped out a bit of foreground, so Iwas farther than it looks.

Thanks for the comment, I’ve just been reading about Hoffman and push-pull, but hadn’t thought about it here. I had noticed, when I viewed the shack picture, that it does somewhat mesh in with the landscape, especially on the right. Hmmm, this is a whole new angle on color I have to ponder…

As far as the last image, yes the color is a big element, but it’s not just that the colors are attractive, it’s what the colors are doing. The thing that strikes me about it is the way the landscape seems to run through the shack, while the shack struggles to separate itself from the background. It’s what Hans Hoffman would have called “push-pull” in describing the phenomenon in painting. It is a result of the way you lined things up in your composition. Another photo of the same shack from a slightly different angle would have just been a pretty picture.

Yes, I was lucky with the clouds; a “perfect” day would have made me miserable. Also yes about the combination being effective. I did in fact have both in my very first, small exhibit.

Charles,

Thank you, I’m glad that comes across to you. I just morn for the paltry take from such a rich and fascinating place.

Your comment is apropos, as my idea was that an old pyramid might indeed look pretty much like a pile of rubble. But I agree this should be more clear, perhaps by a ploy such as making remnant structure more evident. In a full print you could see better that there is actually some layering to the upper parts of the apparent pile. Also, I think I would be content to let context work in a group of images, rather than hit the point too hard with each individually.