Gallery: LandscapePosted March 25, 20045,372 views27 comments
I know that fall is past but I thought I'd post this image anyway.
Ebony RW45 4"x5" View Camera with Schneider Super Angulon 90mm lens & Fujichrome Velvia film
Comments
27 comments
Comment posted by Bill Fach on March 25, 2004 at 4:09 PM
Jerry: Wonderful image. The swirls make the shot. Must have been dead calm to get the foliage so sharp as well. Nicely done. ><>
Registered on November 1, 2003, 1805 Posts, 26981 Comments
Comment posted by Ana on March 25, 2004 at 4:09 PM
I like this a lot. The swirling leaves are wonderful!
Registered on February 10, 2004, 191 Posts, 1446 Comments
Comment posted by Peter Bloch on March 25, 2004 at 4:34 PM
That is really really COOL. This is what I love about looking at photos here, this is such a unique (to me anyway, perhaps I lead a sheltered life) way of capturing the typical waterfall. Great job! The shutter speed, saturation, levels and sharpness are all impressive. I guess I wonder if there was room on the right side to give a little more room to the image on that edge, but I am not hung up about it.
Registered on November 28, 2003, 20 Posts, 47 Comments
Comment posted by Bret Edge on March 25, 2004 at 4:40 PM
Jerry:
This is a fantastic image made even better by the interesting swirls in the water. All those beautiful fall colors, the silky waterfall...simply lovely. The URH corner is a bit distracting, as it draws my eye from the rest of the image, but it's a minor nit. Would love to have this hanging on my wall!
Thanks for sharing.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 711 Posts, 6363 Comments
Comment posted by Roger Rouch on March 25, 2004 at 5:02 PM
Jerry, I've not been inspired to blubber over a photo for a long time, but this one does it for me. It's over the top a couple of times.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 159 Posts, 1014 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Hobson on March 25, 2004 at 5:10 PM
yo jerry (if i may call you yo),
those swirlies look an awful lot like photoshop "magic".
any truth to the rumor?
Registered on December 3, 2003, 702 Posts, 1062 Comments
Comment posted by Peter Bowden on March 25, 2004 at 5:47 PM
Quite whimsical! Thanks for the smile.
Registered on January 13, 2004, 143 Posts, 168 Comments
Comment posted by Brian Kennedy on March 25, 2004 at 5:49 PM
Nice work. I need to get some location tips from you!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 4 Posts, 173 Comments
Comment posted by Tom Wilson on March 25, 2004 at 6:49 PM
Change nothing, print it VERY LARGE!!!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 573 Posts, 2211 Comments
Comment posted by Doug Dolde on March 25, 2004 at 7:02 PM
Beautiful shot Jerry. The red tree really is in the right spot and sets it off well.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 305 Posts, 3900 Comments
Comment posted by Michael Lowe on March 25, 2004 at 7:36 PM
This is a fantastic shot, Jerry. I don't think there is any thing to criticize in it. Editor's Pick maybe?
Registered on February 11, 2004, 777 Posts, 5252 Comments
Comment posted by Michael Schlansker on March 25, 2004 at 9:32 PM
Stunning image. It certainly gets my vote. The leaf capped rocks add to the obvious beauty in the waterfalls and leaf swirls.
Registered on November 12, 2003, 32 Posts, 394 Comments
Comment posted by Todd Caudle on March 25, 2004 at 11:37 PM
This is really okay! Where was it taken? What season is that? What camera gear do you use? I'm glad you cut down those little saplings that were in the foreground, they were a real distraction! I'll bet the campfire smelled real nice!
Registered on November 9, 2003, 472 Posts, 3705 Comments
Comment posted by Jerry Greer on March 26, 2004 at 1:09 AM
Yo Mark,
I hope you are joking! If not I may have to call you into the street!
Mark wrote: yo jerry (if i may call you yo), those swirlies look an awful lot like photoshop "magic". any truth to the rumor?
I don't have to manipulate my images to make this happen! It's all about shutter speed, in fact this is a 55 second exposure. If you look close you will see a little movement in the trees. Answer this question for me, why is it that you digital guys always think that something is screwed with in photoshop? I think its big film envy! Look Mark, I don't even own a "SPY CAMERA"!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 404 Posts, 1977 Comments
Comment posted by Prashant Khapane on March 26, 2004 at 2:34 AM
This is wonderful Jery. And I do know the swirls is not photoshop magic...Great image, colors and composition!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 492 Posts, 4580 Comments
Comment posted by Ott Luuk on March 26, 2004 at 11:12 AM
bleed, my heart! it's PERFECT
Registered on November 1, 2003, 102 Posts, 348 Comments
Comment posted by Dan Baumbach on March 26, 2004 at 2:20 PM
This is just stunning. Composition is wonderful. Color is wonderful.
- Dan.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 473 Posts, 7980 Comments
Comment posted by Matthew Cromer on March 26, 2004 at 6:19 PM
This is sort of nice. ;-)
It's actually stunning for a 640 pixel tall image, but it makes me want to see a 20x24 print of it!
We'll definitely have to do a Southeast NPN gathering this year up in the appalachians somewhere. I want you to show me your magic camera so I can take fall pictures like that!
Registered on November 8, 2003, 42 Posts, 657 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Hobson on March 27, 2004 at 1:29 PM
yo jerry,
just a question, not an accusation - at this size/resolution, and, in this day and digital age, it never hurts to ask (unless of course, you ask me out into the street).
re: "big film envy". i'll raise you one 8x10 (arca swiss) and one 20 <i>minute</i> exposure <a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=4519&b=mp&st=0&la=30&ph=29&sid=8255&u=8255="_blank">here</a>
I've never understood why anyone would use those "little" 4x5s.
warm photographic regards
Registered on December 3, 2003, 702 Posts, 1062 Comments
Comment posted by Guy Tal on March 27, 2004 at 7:30 PM
Jerry,
I have seen similar images though this one really captivates me. I can look at it for hours and enjoy every moment.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 566 Posts, 15507 Comments
Comment posted by Todd Caudle on March 27, 2004 at 9:07 PM
Yo Hobbles (may I call you Hobbles? Oops! Just did!),
As everyone knows, it is a scientific fact that the larger the sheet of film, the smaller the photographer's (insert crude remark here____).
Registered on November 9, 2003, 472 Posts, 3705 Comments
Comment posted by Tony Kuyper on March 28, 2004 at 11:18 AM
Let's see. We've managed to bash digital, large format, Photoshop, and women so far in this thread. Did I leave anything out? Seems to be a bit of insecurity floating around in this form. If we're careful and lucky, our images might disguise who we really are. Our words, however, leave little doubt.
Sssshhhhhhhhh. Be quiet. Let the photograph speak for itself.
Registered on November 1, 2003, 364 Posts, 22328 Comments
Comment posted by Todd Caudle on March 28, 2004 at 12:22 PM
Nobody's said anything derogatory about the Irish yet.
Registered on November 9, 2003, 472 Posts, 3705 Comments
Comment posted by Jerry Greer on March 28, 2004 at 9:51 PM
Tony and all posters,
I felt that I took Mark’s Photoshop accusation pretty well! You’ll notice that I used the instead of the . I was even joking about the “SPY CAMERA” by adding the . At first I was really offended and I think that this would offend most any landscape photographer that shoots LF, amateur or professional. But after spending time reviewing Marks posts to others I then recognized that it’s just his New York style and I decided to just rebut in a joking way. Ethics is what keeps us LF’ers true to our craft and I can proudly say that all of the LF photographers that I know today are true to their craft, especially when it comes to image manipulation. When someone questions an image, as Mark did this image, it’s like getting sucker punched below the belt, he even sent me a special little email notifying me of his post. Personally, I will now take Mark’s critique as just that (a punch below the belt) and think nothing of it just as I would recommend other image posters! This image critique forum is to better ourselves as photographers by receiving legitimate evaluations from our colleagues, not nasty accusations from arrogant photographers that put forward their so call photographic knowledge without merit. I hope that everyone that views this image enjoys it and I reassure each and everyone that it is not a digital manipulation. I do appreciate all the great posts above and also thank those of you that defended this image. This is not a case insecurity, this is defending myself as a photographer. Posting an image that has been manipulated without noting that the image is a digital composite is in my eyes, unethical!
Registered on November 1, 2003, 404 Posts, 1977 Comments
Comment posted by Mark Hobson on March 29, 2004 at 9:00 AM
yo jerry,
calm down. as i said, it was just a question. period. nothing inferred or implied.
Registered on December 3, 2003, 702 Posts, 1062 Comments
Comment posted by Jonathan Sacks on March 29, 2004 at 11:09 AM
That is an AMAZING photograph. The swirls are fantastic. Great job.
Registered on February 10, 2004, 9 Posts, 60 Comments
Comment posted by Ed Lowe on April 2, 2004 at 8:57 PM
This is one fantastic image Jerry. Great job of previsualization with the swirling leaves.
Registered on February 7, 2004, 414 Posts, 7115 Comments
Comments
27 commentsThis is a fantastic image made even better by the interesting swirls in the water. All those beautiful fall colors, the silky waterfall...simply lovely. The URH corner is a bit distracting, as it draws my eye from the rest of the image, but it's a minor nit. Would love to have this hanging on my wall!
Thanks for sharing.
those swirlies look an awful lot like photoshop "magic".
any truth to the rumor?
I hope you are joking! If not I may have to call you into the street!
Mark wrote: yo jerry (if i may call you yo), those swirlies look an awful lot like photoshop "magic". any truth to the rumor?
- Dan.
It's actually stunning for a 640 pixel tall image, but it makes me want to see a 20x24 print of it!
We'll definitely have to do a Southeast NPN gathering this year up in the appalachians somewhere. I want you to show me your magic camera so I can take fall pictures like that!
just a question, not an accusation - at this size/resolution, and, in this day and digital age, it never hurts to ask (unless of course, you ask me out into the street).
re: "big film envy". i'll raise you one 8x10 (arca swiss) and one 20 <i>minute</i> exposure <a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=4519&b=mp&st=0&la=30&ph=29&sid=8255&u=8255="_blank">here</a>
I've never understood why anyone would use those "little" 4x5s.
warm photographic regards
I have seen similar images though this one really captivates me. I can look at it for hours and enjoy every moment.
As everyone knows, it is a scientific fact that the larger the sheet of film, the smaller the photographer's (insert crude remark here____).
Sssshhhhhhhhh. Be quiet. Let the photograph speak for itself.
I felt that I took Mark’s Photoshop accusation pretty well! You’ll notice that I used
calm down. as i said, it was just a question. period. nothing inferred or implied.