Posted by Marc Adamus on April 3, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Some of you probably remember me working on this shot in the past. Well, on my most recent March trip, I finally got the sky I had been waiting for. It was actually pretty tough to keep the whole scene from becoming oversaturated and cast in red, due to an even more amazing sunrise unfolding behind me. Obviously, my composition had to focus on the mountains though. It would have been nice to have some more greenery about, but unfortunately the stream levels aren't usually as high by that time in the year. This shot taken on private land with permission from the owners at Big Alvord ranch.
5D, 17-40 at 33mm, 2-stop GND, polarizer, 1/4 sec. at F11.
Marc,
I have to admit I'm luke warm on this shot. It is pretty but something doesn't sit right with me. Everything seems a bit too centered and I do think the foreground needs a little more color out of the foilage.
My thoughts were that at least the lack of strong color in the foliage kept the focus on stream and mountains while the centering did the same. I wanted the eye to stay on those subjects at least, given the arid surroundings. It's a very rare shot at the least. I may have put too much effort into it though, for how it turned out.
57 views and 1 comment, huh. It's not like it's my best image or anything, but it's not that bad - is it? I wonder if it would work better in B&W?..........
Posted by Ned Fenimore on April 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Yeah, I noticed that 100:0 image you had up the other day and was about to comment on it when it disappeared - I would have done the same. By the way - it was an OK image, but you have better. Just a bit too simple for my taste. But the problem is, that even harsh critique is better than no comment at all. No comment at all leaves me wondering what I did wrong, or why people don't like it. I actually like this shot quite a bit, so if people could be descriptive in letting me know why they don't, that would really help me. I have no shortage of shots with greater mass-appeal, but usually try to post those shots on PNWNP that I'm really on the fence with because I can count on honest opinions.
I actually like this image for all the reasons you stated in your answer to Erik. my only nit is that the mountain actually seems darker than the FG. I was thinking that a 1 stop GND might have given a more realistic DR...
B/W might work real well on this one... give it a shot...
Marc,
Like Erik I am a bit luke warm also. The mountain is a bit dark compared to the FG. As far as it being centered. For me that is just because of the snow on the hills, if there was more on the right or left it wouldn't feel so centered. The FG is fine and compelling.
I guess our standards for you are very high. This would be a stellar image for most of us
Posted by Ned Fenimore on April 3, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Agree with Eric and Phil - plus I'm sorry I didn't comment earlier - work constraints here today..... just curious - do you burn the corners for a vignette look? I happen to like it, and upon first opening I immediately noticed that - like perhaps you burned them or even dodged the center... I like the overall, but the stream exposure is very nice - I'm pretty partial to streams because I highly like to photograph them....
When I first saw this image (I was one of those visits with no comment), I didn't comment because it didn't really leave me with anything to say, or moreover, I wasn't really sure as to what to say about it. I couldn't find any sort of technical flaw (although I was curious what the spot just down and left of the highest peak was) or compositional issue or anything like that, but I also wasn't overly "wowed" by it or connected to it in any way other than a passing glance. It left me saying to myself, "yeah, that's another great image by Marc, but he didn't take that one for me...it was taken for someone else".
I was confused as to why I wasn't wowed by it though. It's a wonderfully composed photograph by an admired photographer, containing several things that I have strong connections to (flowing waters, high desert, alpenglow, glowing clouds), in a rare combination for me, but I couldn't really feel any of them. I've driven through Oregon's high desert area once, but never through this area, so it may be an issue of relativity to me, since I've never stood next to that creek, observed that range or had any experience with it to attach a similar memory to.
One of the more unique things I saw about the high desert areas in Oregon in my drive across US 20 last March was how much standing water, lakes, creeks there were for a desert-like area. I remembered cracking a joke of the sort "swamps in the desert, only in the Pacific NW". I think I'm so used to the high deserts of Colorado and Utah where outside of large rivers, very little water is anywhere to be found, and if it is, it is generally sucked dry by the hordes of cottonwoods or willows swarming to it on all sides. So, seeing a healthy stream in this environment is something new to me.
I really think it is an experience-based thing as far as appreciating the image goes. I'm not sure that there's anything bad about the image or anything you could have done any different. I think that the image is just above most of our levels of appreciation because many of us haven't been to that area or experienced that combination of natural things all at once.
I've camped alone in the desert and enjoyed its solitide, and I've camped next to a stream of running water and enjoyed its music, but I've never experienced both at the same time. If I saw obvious sagebrush, juniper, saltbed or anything else that I could tie a sensual association to, be it sound or smell, I would probably be able to get past it. But, I can't hear the wind in this one, or smell the surroundings, or find something with a unique touch that I've had my hands on, and I think in the end, that leaves me somewhat uncomfortable about it.
Josh, thanks for your comments on this and my image on ESS. You're correct that I do have a very strong personal connection with this area, and that's a lot of the reason I want to hear others opinions. By the way, last March, was probably the wettest the Oregon desert had been in over a decade - it was very rare, and there's usually not nearly that much standing water.
I think the rest of you guys are onto something with lightening up that sky a bit.
This one doesn't grab me the way most of yours do and I'm not real sure why. I like the comp, the sky and background (although the central part is noticeably lighter than the edges, perhaps the land was actually lighter here?). I think what I'm having trouble with is the FG. There is alot of detail there and I'm having to work at picking it out. Just my .02.
Marc,
I think that folks are just used to your normal "knock your socks off" type images that's why you haven't had a ton of responses. This one is subtle, but just as beautiful IMO. I think this is one of those images though that loses something by being presented small. There is so much to explore here aside from the obvious like the mountains, river, and clouds. I find myself particularly drawn to the right side of the stream bank. If I had to change something, I might actually tone down the foothills just below the peaks and perhaps lighten the mountains and sky a little bit. I really like the composition.
I think it's basically an average scene, Marc. It's well done and all, but the scene is just average. A nice sky, a nice mountain with a stream flowing towards the viewer, it's nice but it's sort of BFD, been there, seen that.
Keeping in mind Marc that if this were taken by anybody but you, it'd be among our best work. Its definitely in your "average" pile. The color is great, I'm not really bothered by the darkeness of the mountain or sky. I think what I'd have liked to see would be a vertical composition framed about 5 feet to the left and slightly ahead - maybe right near that light bush on the right bank of the creek - with some of the rocks in the stream in the immediate foreground. I find the rocky outwash to the left of the stream to be a bit distracting and a little too busy.
I like this shot because of the unique elements it contains. I think Bryan has a nice idea with a portrait to get the water to snake into the mountain differently. This is not your best, but the spirit is very unique. I still have a difficult time believing that this is in Oregon !
57:1... Yep, that's how the rest of us feel. It sits much better to have some comment and encouragement, doesn't it?
I remember when in conference with Art Wolfe showing us slides after one of his adventures. We were all very quiet. He was completely unnerved. In fact, he had a similar reaction to yours above. Mind you his images were as extraordinary as ever. Considering all the work of his that we had reviewed in a relatively short period of time, our answers to his astonished, "What's wrong with these?" was that for him, they were "just good."
On this image of yours, the sky looks dark, the color in the sky doesn't do any favors for the land or the stream and vice versa. It's kind of jarring to me. Overall, it lacks the type of light that you are so well known for. To my eye, the image is stronger when cropped off the left to just before the hump where the peaks/snow starts. Save the round bush in the RLC, too; it's a charmer.
BTW, don't spare a little pat on the back once in awhile when you comment on other's work. I can stand negativity up to a point, but I don't favor harsh comments in lieu of no comments. That can get a little cruel. I'd like to know how I could make my photos better with the light I have, when I know I cannot physically do all the things you (singular and plural) can-- like shoot at dawn and dusk or hike into the back country any time much less in the teeth of a winter storm! Your efforts are admirable and do get you the extraordinary shots; but does that mean I can't ever hope for good l'scape shots? Lordy, I hope not. All that said, I AM glad for your comments on my pics lately.
Uh... a little more than 2¢ worth...
I wonder how much people's responses are affected their monitors. I commented on this image last night from home. Right now I'm at work and it looks completely different. If I were to critique this image right now, I'd have fewer favorable things to say and that's no fault of the photographer. Back to work!
The top half of the mountain and sky seem to be about half a stop too dark compared to the foreground, or vise versa. Other than that i think it's a beautiful and dramatic scene. The stark, harsh foreground with the soft feathery sky makes for an interesting story.
I like the scene, and if anything critical I could say, maybe a crop on the left side, the GL is still a little visible, and there seems to be a slight magenta cast in the water, I would back off that abit. I think it seems to centered around the snow peak, or maybe just the fact that the outer sides do not have it, which makes it seem to centered. The white in the water balance out the snow covered peaks, but also fade off to the sides. Otherwise I think its a nice image.
As for the comment ratio: I think there are alot of members on here that would love to have the comments you get on 2 of your images. I think it is discouraging to those who post and not recieve a comment, and then others post behind them and they get 30+. I think more often than not, those who are more skilled, can offer advice to those seeking to get better. It's a forum, and those that post there work are accepting all critiques/comments, and while posting an image, that should generally happen. If images could receive 10 comments, good or bad, it would make the forum even more popular than ever. People ask for them so they can improve. Granted I know most folks are busy, but I try to make my rounds to as many as possible. The one thing I need to do more is browse other catergories, ie, flora, fauna, man/nature. I learned a few years ago not to really worry about getting feedback, it kept me from posting. I also remember this guy on a forum who received alot of comments, and I had a photography exhibit/contest (300 entries) last year, and both of my images received awards (in a contest filled with mostly journalism/documentary work) and judged by someone who specializes in this kind of work at the Stephen Daiter Gallery in Chicago. Well, that guy who always received comments on his work, never came close in the competition. So one should remember, a comment can do alot for people, and can discourage them...
Discussion
21 replies5D, 17-40 at 33mm, 2-stop GND, polarizer, 1/4 sec. at F11.
I have to admit I'm luke warm on this shot. It is pretty but something doesn't sit right with me. Everything seems a bit too centered and I do think the foreground needs a little more color out of the foilage.
My ratio is far worse... quite frustrating...
B/W might work real well on this one... give it a shot...
Like Erik I am a bit luke warm also. The mountain is a bit dark compared to the FG. As far as it being centered. For me that is just because of the snow on the hills, if there was more on the right or left it wouldn't feel so centered. The FG is fine and compelling.
I guess our standards for you are very high. This would be a stellar image for most of us
I was confused as to why I wasn't wowed by it though. It's a wonderfully composed photograph by an admired photographer, containing several things that I have strong connections to (flowing waters, high desert, alpenglow, glowing clouds), in a rare combination for me, but I couldn't really feel any of them. I've driven through Oregon's high desert area once, but never through this area, so it may be an issue of relativity to me, since I've never stood next to that creek, observed that range or had any experience with it to attach a similar memory to.
One of the more unique things I saw about the high desert areas in Oregon in my drive across US 20 last March was how much standing water, lakes, creeks there were for a desert-like area. I remembered cracking a joke of the sort "swamps in the desert, only in the Pacific NW". I think I'm so used to the high deserts of Colorado and Utah where outside of large rivers, very little water is anywhere to be found, and if it is, it is generally sucked dry by the hordes of cottonwoods or willows swarming to it on all sides. So, seeing a healthy stream in this environment is something new to me.
I really think it is an experience-based thing as far as appreciating the image goes. I'm not sure that there's anything bad about the image or anything you could have done any different. I think that the image is just above most of our levels of appreciation because many of us haven't been to that area or experienced that combination of natural things all at once.
I've camped alone in the desert and enjoyed its solitide, and I've camped next to a stream of running water and enjoyed its music, but I've never experienced both at the same time. If I saw obvious sagebrush, juniper, saltbed or anything else that I could tie a sensual association to, be it sound or smell, I would probably be able to get past it. But, I can't hear the wind in this one, or smell the surroundings, or find something with a unique touch that I've had my hands on, and I think in the end, that leaves me somewhat uncomfortable about it.
I think the rest of you guys are onto something with lightening up that sky a bit.
I think that folks are just used to your normal "knock your socks off" type images that's why you haven't had a ton of responses. This one is subtle, but just as beautiful IMO. I think this is one of those images though that loses something by being presented small. There is so much to explore here aside from the obvious like the mountains, river, and clouds. I find myself particularly drawn to the right side of the stream bank. If I had to change something, I might actually tone down the foothills just below the peaks and perhaps lighten the mountains and sky a little bit. I really like the composition.
I remember when in conference with Art Wolfe showing us slides after one of his adventures. We were all very quiet. He was completely unnerved. In fact, he had a similar reaction to yours above. Mind you his images were as extraordinary as ever. Considering all the work of his that we had reviewed in a relatively short period of time, our answers to his astonished, "What's wrong with these?" was that for him, they were "just good."
On this image of yours, the sky looks dark, the color in the sky doesn't do any favors for the land or the stream and vice versa. It's kind of jarring to me. Overall, it lacks the type of light that you are so well known for. To my eye, the image is stronger when cropped off the left to just before the hump where the peaks/snow starts. Save the round bush in the RLC, too; it's a charmer.
BTW, don't spare a little pat on the back once in awhile when you comment on other's work. I can stand negativity up to a point, but I don't favor harsh comments in lieu of no comments. That can get a little cruel. I'd like to know how I could make my photos better with the light I have, when I know I cannot physically do all the things you (singular and plural) can-- like shoot at dawn and dusk or hike into the back country any time much less in the teeth of a winter storm! Your efforts are admirable and do get you the extraordinary shots; but does that mean I can't ever hope for good l'scape shots? Lordy, I hope not. All that said, I AM glad for your comments on my pics lately.
Uh... a little more than 2¢ worth...
As for the comment ratio: I think there are alot of members on here that would love to have the comments you get on 2 of your images. I think it is discouraging to those who post and not recieve a comment, and then others post behind them and they get 30+. I think more often than not, those who are more skilled, can offer advice to those seeking to get better. It's a forum, and those that post there work are accepting all critiques/comments, and while posting an image, that should generally happen. If images could receive 10 comments, good or bad, it would make the forum even more popular than ever. People ask for them so they can improve. Granted I know most folks are busy, but I try to make my rounds to as many as possible. The one thing I need to do more is browse other catergories, ie, flora, fauna, man/nature. I learned a few years ago not to really worry about getting feedback, it kept me from posting. I also remember this guy on a forum who received alot of comments, and I had a photography exhibit/contest (300 entries) last year, and both of my images received awards (in a contest filled with mostly journalism/documentary work) and judged by someone who specializes in this kind of work at the Stephen Daiter Gallery in Chicago. Well, that guy who always received comments on his work, never came close in the competition. So one should remember, a comment can do alot for people, and can discourage them...