Just a little bit of adjustment to the tonal range would be good. The depths of that canyon are just a little bit dark … a little bit too much “Zone 2” for my taste. Since the bridge is an essential feature in the shot, it needs to be evenly-exposed without (of course) losing the fact that the bottom is in a “deep, dark” canyon. I’d like to be able to see the bottom of that bridge just a little more clearly…
In addition, since it is a feature of the shot, you need to be sure that its lighting is such that the viewer’s eye is slightly attracted to it without him noticing that this is so. The eye is drawn first to light, then to sharpness, but you want “just a kiss” of effect here so that … as Michael Douglas’ character put it in A Chorus Line: “Don’t draw my eye!!”
Anyhow, these are very slight “tweaks.” The modeling is excellent and the video presentation is equally fine. Put a couple of stills into Photoshop and pull a histogram-tool on it for an objective look…
What you’ve got right now probably is a mathematically-correct interpretation of how the lighting-values might fall on your geometry. But when expressed on my video-screen or film or paper or what-have-you, there’s the matter of the compressed tonal ranges of those media. You literally have a gamut of values here, from blue-sky to abyss all in one shot, and a photographer would have to fight-like-hell to get it. A “realistic” shot is going to be weighed against the viewer’s memory of shots he’s seen in the past… and all those peculiarities of medium that Ansel Adams articulated in The Negative and The Print.
I’d be doin’ the darkroom dance (and luvin’ every minute of it…), “burning in” the bottom of that canyon ever so slightly … maybe “dodging” that sky
