"Dreaming Ocean"

Very tasty indeed. Great colouring and most suitable for a panoramic format. I wonder if it might have been possible to have had a little more light (even longer exposure) on the shaded underside of the rocks.

An amazing result, well worth your efforts with exposure and stitching (the latter of which is not apparent at all). Superbly executed. The colours of the sky are heavenly, and the water looks like glass. The composition too works very well, with various rocks set on differing planes of distance. The overall effect is an enticing location with a serene and enigmatic atmosphere.

Very nice indeed. I would have liked a little bit more sky and less water in the foreground, but it's pretty near perfect as it is.

Frank, thanks for your comment and your strict rating. When I took this photo I was more impressed with the sea than the sky. I made a lot photographs with different exposure times and filters to see what effects I could get from the water. Although the sky looks beautiful, I did not have a sunset photo in mind, rather the remaining light falling onto the water and the rocks, which had become less as the sun was setting. With a properly adjusted monitor it should be possible to see all the details in the foreground. The printed version shows a better tonal range than the internet version.

Hallo Juergen,

 

Soll ich jetzt auf Deutsch oder Englisch schreiben - ach, bleiben wir lieber bei Englisch.

 

I admit that I was a bit hesitant when I hit the 'submit ratings' button, because I realised that my ratings were quite a bit lower than the average ratings for this photo, and this doesn't happen to me very often.

 

I sort of felt that I needed at least to provide an explanation, but at the time laziness got the better of me. Thanks for getting back to me and reminding me of my obligation.

 

Regarding originality, I can't see how people can give 8 and 9 ratings in this category for this photo. It is a seascape like many others - water, rocks, sunset. The smooth water thingy with the long exposure time is quite neat, but even that has been done a gazillion times before. Admittedly, you don't see the smooth water and the sunset combined very often. So maybe 4 was a bit harsh.

 

Regarding aesthetics, I just had a look at the photo at my home computer, which is probably quite a bit better calibrated than the one at work, which I used earlier today. I believe I now see details in the rocks on the left-hand side, which I did not see before. Also, the shadows that the rocks throw on the water are a bit clearer. However, there is just too much smooth grey area in the foreground on the left-hand side. I don't think even the print would help here, because apparently that's the effect that you wanted to achieve. For me there is a little bit too much of it, and the sky has it easier to hold my interest, but of course this is just personal taste.

 

What impressed me most about your explanation is that you were obviously after a certain effect and achieved it with quite a bit of hard work. Together with the fact that I am always in for a good haggle, as well as being a generous person, this has made me correct my ratings from 4/6 to 6/8.

 

Don't get your knickers in a twist about photo.net ratings, mate - just go out and shoot some more great photos like this one!

 

Viele Gruesse aus Australien

 

 

Frank I may be wrong here but I was under the impression 'originality' also covered 'technicality/cleverness'. At least in the past this was the case. I scored it high here because of the efforts made to achieve a predetermined effect, and the fact that the stitching was imperceptible to my eye. Apart from the effect of long exposure on the water, the sky also appealed to me. There may be lots of sunset shots out there but it is not too often you find one with no hot areas. The ambient light is beautiful and atmospheric, and the exposure choice for me is spot on. The foreground/distant elements, and the two shot stitch for a panorama illustrates a series of successful decisions on the part of the photographer. I realise you reviewed your rating and comment already, but I just thought I would clarify my thoughts when rating this post on 'originality' since you mention you can't see how others rated highly.

Great image, I feel... REALLY great... I read with interest a comment by Frank Mueller... Here are a few comments about his comments...

Details in the rocks: well, I see some details, but if I wouldn't, how sure would I be that they aren't on the original trans ? One problem all photographers face on the net is monitor calibration, another one is the scanning quality, another one is the compression quality, another one is the leathal 72 dpi in the first place... So, let's bear all that in mind...

Then " too much grey in the foreground ": based on the idea that the sun might be too yellow, or that grey isn't nice in general ? I think critiques would gain to be critics from THE INSIDE of a picture, meaning about the internal compatibility of the elements that make a certain image what it is... Or else, it easily sounds like " I prefer other pictures, with more orange in them ". A rating is different and is always valid since it is just an expression of a personal opinion...

Finally comes the fact that such pictures have been taken a zillion times: very true ! Does that justify a bad comment about it ? I don't think so... If Leonardo would be back among us and re-paint the way he did before, would he be to blame for it ? Or if another artist would be able to execute master pieces like Leonardo did, would he be tagged " Lacks originality " ? I don't think so... Here again, I suggest to see things as what they are: the subject itself, the rocks by the sea, is very very common... So what ? We should look whether the TREATMENT of that subject is common or not. Quite common, but not SO common would then be the answer, I suppose... And anyway, we are back here to the fact that the impact of the picture should be what matters most, not how new or different it is... The "Originality" rating is misleading, and not THAT interesting in my opinion...

 

There are a few enhancements that could be made. But, overall it is a good image. I would hang it in my office.

Thanks for all your kind comments. Michael, what enhancement would you suggest ? Another thing, I am just curious why this photograph would be more suitable for an office ? I like the idea if this is the place where you spend most of your time ;-)

Enhancements- I would like to see a bit of light (to reveal texture) on the top of a few rocks. Add a touch of sky color in the left foreground.

 

I spend 40 hours a week in my office. It would be nice to see this image on the walls.

Yes, this is pretty fabulous. My one constructive criticism would be to not crop quite as tightly at the top. The rock peak to the left gets perilously close to the edge of the image and my eye is drawn there. Otherwise this is an estimable achievement.

In the past, I have disagreed with the pictures that were selected as Picture of the Week, but IMHO, this photo deserves the title. I'm usually not much on panoramas, but I like this one very much. The colors are awesome. The foreground has just enough light to show the texture of the rocks yet absent enough for the foreground to not over-power the picture. Great job.

 

Being POW comes with a price. Most POWs are subject to rude and unethical remarks. These remarks do nothing to help in critiquing a photo. They just show the ignorance and lack of manners that some members on this site have. I hope you don't have to suffer through this, because this indeed is a fine piece of art.

The sky looks too artificial to me and the foreground a little dark. The "panoramization" through combining 2 pictures works well. WJ

Good job, Juergen. I especially appreciate the subtle detail of the rock formations you've managed to capture in the picture's foreground scene.

And the sky color? How was this achieved?

Congratuations on a worthy PoW, and a great job. What makes the shot for me is the purple and magentas. The rocks look muddy, but I think they work in the composition.

 

Question: sunset is a lot shorter the closer to the Equator you get. How did this change your photographic decisions, if at all? Best, KEP

Nice color in the sky, though the forground just seems a bit too dark and muddy for my tastes.

 

This is, however, a delicate image to be judging online since we're going to get all of these variations in monitor gamma; even a slightly darker one could make this shot look like crap.

 

I imagine that the subleties in lighting show up much better in a well-hung print of this panorama. :-)

Comments on POWs have to be more rigorous. It's good but it's too underexposed. Not even an small area with some good light.

When I first saw this, I said, "Another KPT BRYCE manufactured image..."

 

That's how good it was and how wrong I was.

 

Beautiful magenta sky, it must have been really something to see in real life; I enjoy looking at it on my monitor. It reminds me of sunsets I have seen but have been unable to capture.

 

Congratulations on Picture of the Week. I have always enjoyed your work.

 

Peter Christoph

Great tech work on this. It's hard to really appreciate a picture like this on the web. Looks like all of the ingredients for a good photo are here. Your compositon and color are well done. I'd just like to see a tad lighter foreground.

Don't let anyone dog you about a certain type photo being shot a billion times. More than likely, less than 10% of these photos out there have any thought or reason behind them. And fewer are well done.

Good job and congrats.

I love low-light time exposures and this one is very nice. I agree that the rocks are a bit dim but a longer exposure would have definitely ruined the sky. The rocks intersecting the horizon line also rules out the Graduated ND filter option. Dodging and burning is always an option but I have a different suggestion in case you feel like trying something interesting.

 

I like to set my camera timer and then aim and fire my flash hand-held during the exposure. During longer exposures I can run around and add highlights wherever I want. This might be a neat way to bring out some more detail in the rocks and add an even more surrealistic effect.

 

PS: not that it really matters that much but 72 Dpi is a Mac limitation.

Nice shot though.

 

I can see what you were getting at by keeping this dark (a non-brightness enhanced representation of twilight color, a sort-of "natural" view, rather than a prettied-up version), but I think it's too dark. The shadow under the rocks (right/foreground) measures flat black (no detail). This is not a monitor thing. It's in the file. There are other shadow areas that also have zero detail. "Zero detail" areas in a shot otherwise full of detail (even if muted detail) is a mistake, I think.

 

This either means the scan was not up to scratch, or that the original was heavily underexposed, or perhaps both.

 

I know that shots like this have the limited dynamic range of film to contend with, especially if transparency film is used. But in this case you have used neg film. I would have thought that a neg film might have allowed more detail in these shadow areas (if it's just a scan problem), or alternatively would have allowed you to increase exposure by a good stop to properly record it (if it's a film problem). Perhaps you just clipped the blacks in Photoshop without noticing?

 

I feel that, if I was there, my unaided eyes would have picked up more detail and that thus this photograph doesn't really achieve what it sets out to.

 

I think it's just too dark. At least a stop.

 

 

I was just about to say that it was too dark when I noticed that Tony had beaten me to it. I'm glad someone agrees.

Yeah, I think it's just too dark. At least a stop. :)

Tony, some of the shadow area does come out 0.0.0. but it migrates to black from various color definitions. This might well be a scan issue, as you suggest, and if so the question then would be whether or not the scan was defective (they all are to one degree or another) or the exposure so minimal in those areas as to preclude much detail recorded by the scanner. My SS4000 collects considerable detail out of shadows at 4000 dpi, less at lower dpi settings, and this can all be "seen" in the TIFF RAW I originally work with. Some other scanners will be able to collect less shadow detail, however, and from all I've been able to read by unhappy owners considerably less detail in all too many cases.

Anyway, with very little color to work with it could be that the compression of the image and conversion from TIFF to JPEG necessitated that areas which did have minimal color definition were "averaged" by JPEG into more 0.0.0 scores then were present in the original scan--I'd bet this is the case. I haven't read a comprehensive study on the issue, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that conversion to JPEG has lots of similar effects when working at the extreme ends of the color spectrum, as this image apparently required.

I like subdued photographic settings and deep shadows do not bother me--indeed, I sometimes seek these shadow areas. Still, depending on what effect the photographer wanted another stop might have been okay at that, perhaps with a graduated ND filter to paritally mask the relatively brighter sky. Keep in mind all the while that it's difficult to judge what the photographer actually saw at the time. Juergen did indicate that this JPEG image has lost some of its "tonal range," though before that he indicated that "all" the shadow detail came though, so it would seem he's satisfied at least that the result he looked for with regard to the latter was realized. (Whether or not this equates into "what he actualy saw" is another matter.)

Hi Jeurgen. The theologians have already begun, talking to each about canon law instead of to you about the photo. Before they take over, I simply want to offer my congratulations, not just for this photo, but for your complete body of work, which I find an inspiration.

Juergen,

Congratulations!!!

I love the wonderful feeling of soothe and beauty. The dark area contribute a lot to the whole mood, I happen to love it(as somebody noted as underexposure).