Gallery: LandscapePosted July 19, 2013484 views11 comments
I posted this image earlier this week (my first attempt at posting on this site) and didn't include the larger image...please accept the apology of this newbie.
Here is the larger, web sharpened image.
Comments
11 comments
Comment posted by Mark Metternich on July 19, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Thanks for the re post! Looks friggin awesome! What a shot!
My only thought is the incoherence in the water, of the sky, above the mountain. I'm wondering if you can bring out more of the sky drama and color down there too?
Registered on June 19, 2009, 276 Posts, 6240 Comments
Comment posted by Marc Adamus on July 19, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Again, same critique as I offered last time. No reflected sky, and the sky should be reflected at least somewhat. Otherwise the top looks good to me but the bottom appears significantly disconnected.
Registered on September 17, 2005, 780 Posts, 8091 Comments
Comment posted by Lon Overacker on July 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Mark,
First of all welcome to NPN and the Landscape Gallery! This was a gorgeous first post; not unlike anything I've seen posted here of Cathedral Peak. I think you chose very nicely with the narrow format and giving the viewer a bit more of the alpine landscape.
the only suggestion/comment I have is the saturation of the warmly lit peak. No doubt it was (as is) spectacular light, but maybe just a tad too much? But actually it's not far off and I think within the realm of personal choice and recollection.
Regarding the water and reflection, here's my theory. It's all about angles. It appears to me that this was captured from a pretty elevated location - considering the eye level of this view is well above pines that could be as much as 50 feet high? just guessing. SO, the angle from this viewpoint to the water and back up to the sky is much more acute than if you were standing on the shoreline. With a more obtuse angle from that viewpoint I would expect to see those clouds and color reflected. Ah, but someone says, what about the peak? It's being reflected? I wondered about that too, but if you simply draw the angles out from a side view on a piece of paper, you realize there is significant distances involved here - the peak is right there, where as the clouds are perhaps thousands of feet away. So, because of the angle created from the elevated position, we can only see the bluer sky above being reflected, plus the much closer cathedral peak (and not all of it mind you, notice the ridge line is NOT reflected - where as it would be if the photographer was on the lakeshore.) Whew!
Now if Mark tells us he swapped in a different sky, I'll humbly put my tail between my legs. I certainly understand the immediate thought of a mismatch though.
Mark, your thoughts?
BTW, welcome to NPN, you're off to a great start!
Lon
Registered on November 24, 2006, 521 Posts, 19147 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Brodkin on July 19, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Thank you again everyone for your comments. I was not sure if/how to address the reflection comments, but think that Lon has the answer. I had to climb up quite a bit of rocks to get to my vantage point and this may explain the difference in colour reflected in the lake. After reading the comments, I went back to my raw file to see if I could pull up any gold in the water, but I prefer the result on the posted image. I did enhance the warm light on the mountain in Lightroom and with a Tony Kuyper action in Photoshop. While it is certainly quite saturated, I must say that my recollection of the scene was of the most incredible light I have ever photographed. All of that being said, it was an incredible thrill to shoot that scene, the kind of moment that keeps me waking up before dawn, driving for countless hours and climbing to some crazy/stupid places just to get the shot. Thank you all again for the comments, it is a great pleasure to be part of this forum and to receive such valuable and frank comments from such amazing photographers. I look forward to posting more images to the site and I welcome any feedback. Have a great weekend!
Registered on July 15, 2013, 24 Posts, 28 Comments
Comment posted by Marc Adamus on July 19, 2013 at 7:39 PM
I'm still lost. I've shot this from the same angle and can clearly see the sky's reflection here
Registered on September 17, 2005, 780 Posts, 8091 Comments
Comment posted by Lon Overacker on July 19, 2013 at 7:49 PM
This is what I think is happening Marc. In both images we can not see the entire sky. My guess is that you have color in the sky that goes well beyond the frame, perhaps even overhead. In Marks image, I'm guessing that just beyond the edge of the frame the sky is bluer and near cloudless above. There is even a hint the clouds are diminishing in his shot, more blue near top, mid frame.
Another way to think about this I've just written to another member is this. What happens when you are at lakes or rivers edge, or even alongside a creek in fall and you want to maximize the color in the reflection? What do we do? we squat down, or change the angle of view in order to get the most of the reflection. At ground level we see and expect an exact mirror reflection, which is why we always comment on symmetry. However, in both Marc's and Mark's images, we do not see the entire cathedral peak in the reflection. And for the same reason (distance and elevation) we do not see the clouds in Marks, but we do in yours Marc, simply because you have color above which allows for the reflection.
Sorry Mark for kinda hi-jacking your post, but you would be the only one to know if the sky above was blue. Do you have any sample verticals showing more sky? Very curious now.
Lon
beautiful rendition BTW.
Registered on November 24, 2006, 521 Posts, 19147 Comments
Comment posted by Marc Adamus on July 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM
Yeah, I'm not very curious but I do understand optical geometry, and to me it looks like there should be some reflection. I mean, if you do the angles correctly, you'd see that the reflected color in my shot is not that far off from where the reflection of the peak is, and it is here. Probably just need to bring a little more pop out of the RAW file. And I was assuming there was blue sky above the color here. It looks odd to me, but I'm a photographer and not someone who would buy your image. Someone who wanted to hang this on the wall wouldn't care a bit.
Registered on September 17, 2005, 780 Posts, 8091 Comments
Comment posted by SandyRichardsBrown on July 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM
Terrific image!
Exceptional light and nice comp.
Very well-done!
Sandy
Registered on November 24, 2003, 3937 Posts, 12909 Comments
Comment posted by Nick Palmieri on July 19, 2013 at 9:33 PM
Beautiful composition. Even if it appears slightly oversaturated the light on the mountain is sweet.
Registered on September 1, 2011, 35 Posts, 748 Comments
Comment posted by Johan Eickmeyer on July 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Marc Adamus, your version is from further to the left and down more is it not?
His photo is from a much higher perspective and I can see why the angles would create this effect of no clouds.
I agree it does look strange, though.
I think moving to the left would help center the peak away from the edge of the lake on the right, as they are a little too close to overlapping.
Overall this is a brilliant scene and I think it would be much easier to appreciate the shot if it was printed HUGE and hanging in a gallery. I often shoot huge panoramas that look kinda of weak online, but brilliant printed over 70 inches. The colors and details are very nice.
Registered on March 25, 2013, 36 Posts, 164 Comments
Comment posted by Bobby Ho on July 20, 2013 at 7:35 PM
I think it is a great panoramic photo! The geometry and color tones look natural to me. The reflection of the peak is very nice.
Registered on April 21, 2013, 14 Posts, 23 Comments
Comments
11 commentsMy only thought is the incoherence in the water, of the sky, above the mountain. I'm wondering if you can bring out more of the sky drama and color down there too?
First of all welcome to NPN and the Landscape Gallery! This was a gorgeous first post; not unlike anything I've seen posted here of Cathedral Peak. I think you chose very nicely with the narrow format and giving the viewer a bit more of the alpine landscape.
the only suggestion/comment I have is the saturation of the warmly lit peak. No doubt it was (as is) spectacular light, but maybe just a tad too much? But actually it's not far off and I think within the realm of personal choice and recollection.
Regarding the water and reflection, here's my theory. It's all about angles. It appears to me that this was captured from a pretty elevated location - considering the eye level of this view is well above pines that could be as much as 50 feet high? just guessing. SO, the angle from this viewpoint to the water and back up to the sky is much more acute than if you were standing on the shoreline. With a more obtuse angle from that viewpoint I would expect to see those clouds and color reflected. Ah, but someone says, what about the peak? It's being reflected? I wondered about that too, but if you simply draw the angles out from a side view on a piece of paper, you realize there is significant distances involved here - the peak is right there, where as the clouds are perhaps thousands of feet away. So, because of the angle created from the elevated position, we can only see the bluer sky above being reflected, plus the much closer cathedral peak (and not all of it mind you, notice the ridge line is NOT reflected - where as it would be if the photographer was on the lakeshore.) Whew!
Now if Mark tells us he swapped in a different sky, I'll humbly put my tail between my legs. I certainly understand the immediate thought of a mismatch though.
Mark, your thoughts?
BTW, welcome to NPN, you're off to a great start!
Lon
Another way to think about this I've just written to another member is this. What happens when you are at lakes or rivers edge, or even alongside a creek in fall and you want to maximize the color in the reflection? What do we do? we squat down, or change the angle of view in order to get the most of the reflection. At ground level we see and expect an exact mirror reflection, which is why we always comment on symmetry. However, in both Marc's and Mark's images, we do not see the entire cathedral peak in the reflection. And for the same reason (distance and elevation) we do not see the clouds in Marks, but we do in yours Marc, simply because you have color above which allows for the reflection.
Sorry Mark for kinda hi-jacking your post, but you would be the only one to know if the sky above was blue. Do you have any sample verticals showing more sky? Very curious now.
Lon
beautiful rendition BTW.
Exceptional light and nice comp.
Very well-done!
Sandy
His photo is from a much higher perspective and I can see why the angles would create this effect of no clouds.
I agree it does look strange, though.
I think moving to the left would help center the peak away from the edge of the lake on the right, as they are a little too close to overlapping.
Overall this is a brilliant scene and I think it would be much easier to appreciate the shot if it was printed HUGE and hanging in a gallery. I often shoot huge panoramas that look kinda of weak online, but brilliant printed over 70 inches. The colors and details are very nice.