Found this long overlooked image and decided to toss it out there to see if it works for anyone... I'm still unsure but it is interesting.
Posted by Erik Lundh on November 21, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Larry,
To me the top half of the image seems noisy. It could be the web sharpening that caused it. Also, the tint and glare on the foreground rocks is kind of distracting. And lastly, I just don't see much interest or leading lines. I usually like to be honest on images that I comment on. I'm just not into candy coating EVERY shot thats posted.
Posted by Rick Lundh on November 22, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Larry,
I can see why you wonder about this one. There's almost some kind of unique quality, but I think it falls short of a keeper.
Posted by Janet Bentley on November 23, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Larry, this isn't in the tradition on NPNers, but might get favorable feedback from those who enjoy browing the photo art forum. The lighting and shadows against the texture of the water are kinda cool. It has has the feeling of the impressionistic genre of painters. Very different. I like it.
I almost posted it in photo art for the reasons mentioned. Short exposure of falling water is not the norm here. Thanks for the responses.
Posted by John Williams on November 24, 2007 at 12:05 PM
What Janet said .
Posted by Darren White on November 24, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Why would he post this in the PA forum just because the water is not blurred....the image is not noisy at all but I feel that the look is caused by the waterdroplets. I like the warm light on the rocks
this image is about as far from PA as I have seen......
JMO
Posted by Janet Bentley on November 24, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Darren, you are right about it not strictly being PA in that most of us finalize our creation of PA by using tools to manipulate images to create a new look. Larry's piece has that very cool art cook straight from the camera. It's not the conventional water capture that we usually see here. I like those also. PA art or not - either way - I like it.
It's refreshing to see this image recognized as straight from the box without photoshopping it into look this way. Few falls could work as well as this did at a high shutter speed and I though it was a nice change from the norm.
Posted by Rick Dunn on November 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Larry,
For me, short/long shutter speed doesn't make or break the image. I think the lighting contributes a lot to the scene, but I don't think that the scene itself is strong enough to make the most of the light. I think you said it best - it is interesting, but....
Discussion
10 repliesTo me the top half of the image seems noisy. It could be the web sharpening that caused it. Also, the tint and glare on the foreground rocks is kind of distracting. And lastly, I just don't see much interest or leading lines. I usually like to be honest on images that I comment on. I'm just not into candy coating EVERY shot thats posted.
I can see why you wonder about this one. There's almost some kind of unique quality, but I think it falls short of a keeper.
this image is about as far from PA as I have seen......
JMO
For me, short/long shutter speed doesn't make or break the image. I think the lighting contributes a lot to the scene, but I don't think that the scene itself is strong enough to make the most of the light. I think you said it best - it is interesting, but....