"Dreaming Ocean"

I like this one a lot, too. I fall on the "a bit too dark" side of the fence, but I enjoy the beautiful colors and the composition is very well done. Your PS stitch job worked great.

I don't like them, anyway I don't think the problem is how good we can see in the darkness, or how accurate the light in the photo is with respect to the real thing, but which is the best aesthetic approach - and/or which are the feelings that the photo conveys.

 

The darkness could have a precise meaning, e.g. a sense of mystery (dream or nightmare?) about the rocks as opposed to the serene pink colour of the sky. OTOH with that kind of soft light and subject I would personally enjoy an exposure that conveys the tactile feeling of the rocks (follow the link to the comparison picture in my previous comment for an example).

 

It would be interesting to know if there is and what is the meaning of the photo in Juergen's mind.

 

There's might some of that in there, too, Michael. Maybe I should get to Malaysia more often at that--for all I know it would help loosen up the old strings.

Kyle: that's not a bad site but it is apparently the case that you have misread the information presented there. This author (or authors if it's a collective effort) claims a rather conservative dynamic range for chromes (in analog printed form--there is no mention of what working reality can be expected for web presentation, though one might expect even less!) of just four stops, or, in other words, twenty per cent less than what I stated. I don't work with chromes at all these days and my overall experience is limited due to the type of photographic work I normally pursue, but unless I'm very much mistaken the four stops referred to at this site in reality are actually closer to five stops. Why they claim only four I don't know--perhaps in an effort to alert the beginner coming in that chromes are extremely ticklish when it comes to the issue of spot-on exposure, as opposed to the use of negative emulsions. If that is the purpose then I'd say the effort is worthwhile, and for all I know the working reality out there with the average lab is four stops on paper. not five.

Speaking of labs . . . I met a photographer a few weeks ago who recommended a "custom lab" in town (I live in San Francisco), and so I went dutifully round eventually with two rolls of C41 and some TMax. The result?

Well, just as a matter of course I always instruct the person at the counter that I want my stuff returned to me with no prints, just the negatives cut and sleeved with a proof sheet. She responded (in passing--luckily I had my ears open) that that would be fine, "We always cut C41 stuff into strips of seven frames."

"Seven?" I asked, more than a little alarmed.

"That's right" she said.

Ignoring her I immediately marched directly over to a young man I took to be the manager or owner of this business and repeated what the girl had said, "That's a mistake, right?" adding hopefully "She meant to say six frames per strip?"

The manager looked at me somewhat irritably for interrupting his wortk and said, "No, we cut all of our C41 into strips of seven frames."

I shook my head in disbelief and stated, "But that's crazy! My scanner's negative strip holder only accepts up to six frames at a time."

"We do our B&W work that way, but our C41 is cut into strips of seven frames each." Then he added, "We've always done our color film that way," this last bit pronounced with finality.

I almost stammered in reply.

"But you've got to adhere to some standards--"

"I don't have to do shit!" this man told me, cutting off any possible dialog. "Now go take your business somewhere else!"

With that he spun on his heels and disappeared into the back room with no further ado.

I returned to the counter like a punch-drunk fighter to retrieve a previous (my first from the day before) order of TMax, then stumbled outside. Once in my cab I opened up the envelope to find inside that two of the TMax strips had been printed backward on the contact sheet!

Hello?

Anyone paying attention will realize how bizarre this story is, how utterly unreal it sounds on its face, but I swear it is the truth. And if that is any example of what some of these "pro labs" get away with nowadays then I can easily imagine that transparancies have a printed dynamic range of just four stops.

I don't know, maybe I've just lost touch along the way, but when I was growing up chromes were credited with having five stops.

Regarding light/gamma issues: I fiddled with my settings yet again last night and have managed to tweak my monitor so that it's apparent gamma setting is now closer to 2.1 or even a bit less instead of the recommended 2.2 I had it set for before (I work on a PC, by the way). At this new setting I can see a lot more foreground detail, of course.

Purpose? I suppose to satisfy myself yet again that there's just no way to determine what everyone's actually looking at out there.

Conclusion? This hobby of ours needs some hard and fast standards in a big way. What we have now is more like organized chaos.

Fancy crop/digital composite or not, this shot is typical of color print film that's under-exposed by at least a stop, if not more. Sorry, but the murky and bland foreground pretty much ruins this shot for me.

 

Always err for over-exposure with sunsets when shooting print film. You can always burn the sky in via digital or conventional means later on. That's the main inherent advantage to shooting color neg over slide.

I really like the panoramic effect in this image, and the composition complements that very well. The sky coloration also creates a nice moody feel, though almost seems like it's filtration. I would rate this very highly, except for the too-dark forground in relation to the sky. Seems to me that this image is a perfect candidate for careful use of a split neutral density filter positioned exactly at the horizon line. I think that would balance the light and give a much fuller image.

The POW nomination for this photograph really took me by surprise and I would like to express my sincere thanks to the editors of photo.net and to all of you fellow members who took the time to have a look at this photograph, give some feedback by rating this image or even leave a comment. I will try my best to answer all the questions regarding technical aspects and what I had in mind when I took the original photographs which I used for this stiched image. Please allow me a few days so that I can consider all the questions in my response. Thanks again.

 

The picture is nice and well composed too! I like the colors. The fact that it is underexposed is what I do not like. Perhaps you could have dodged the dark parts a little bit in Photoshop. Also I would prefer a slightly bigger image. I'd say originality 6, aesthetics 7, tech 5 which makes a good average of 6.

The fact that it is done with a consumer film is wort a 0.5 => 6.5 total ;)

OK, here is a version that doesn't look "underexposed", created quickly in Photoshop. There is still no detail on the underside of the foreground rock, and it doesn't look as good as it would if there were more exposure to begin with. But leave those things aside and imagine those problems weren't there.

 

Is this really more like what people want to see? For me, it completely destroys the mood and the meaning of the original.

i like the foto (and the original better than the lighter-rock version) but theres just something with those graduated colour filters that gives me that weird feeling in the back of my throat like i've just ate some of that fake cream that comes in some cakes.

I like this very much. The title is very appropriate, it's colors and lack of some definition brings me to a kind of dream state. More sky, less sky, more beach, less beach I think is irrelevent. The fact is this photo stands great the way it is.

I'm just learning Photoshop myself. The seam is virtually invisible.

Brian, your rework, revealing the bland foreground, leads me to wonder whether the whole concept of this picture isn't flawed to start with. Perhaps he should have picked a better spot - higher or further down the beach - to take the picture?

Hi Juergen, keep to shoot your own way and don't listen what other peole are trying to say about what other people want to see? For me your photo is great the way it is. Also grat work in Photoshop ( nowdays darkroom ). Start to shoot on middle or large format and sell

I'm delighted that your work has received this deserved recognition Juergen, and congratulate you on the capture of a beautiful image and mood; true to its title and, I daresay, your impressions of the scene at the time.

 

 

There's a great wealth of beauty and ingenuity within your extensive portfolio. Virtually any one of your works could have surfaced quite comfortably on this page - "Dreaming Ocean" is certainly deserving of a week in the spotlight.

 

 

Respekt.

 

 

Tony, I am sure that when Juergen has collected his thoughts, he will speak for himself; however, I suspect that what is on display is what he visualized. Probably he exposed for the sky, knowing that this would underexpose the foreground and render it dark, at the same time using a long exposure to smooth the sea, and taking two images to be stitched -- producing the very original, dreamlike, image that we see.

 

The foreground detail is not important in this image -- it is uninspiring and, as you say, bland. The only purpose served by rendering it in bright detail would have been to keep all the Ansel-Adams-edge-to-edge-sharpness-infinite-depth-of-field-detail-in-the-shadows-radiant-tonality guys from nipping at his heels, at the expense of making the image banal.

 

Supporting my theory that the effect is deliberate are several other images in the same style in the folder. I also recall quite distinctly at least one other photograph that Juergen has since deleted which was even darker than any currently in the folder. (Actually, I would be interested in knowing why Juergen deleted this other image, because like this one it was quite wonderful.)

 

I agree with Brian completely. Juergen will no doubt confirm that the underexposure was intended, and as Brian points out there are other similar shots in this folder. This has been a favoured location for Juergen and he has experimented with many different exposures, angles, times of year, times of day, and types of camera, from various positions of the coastline. Like a labour of love. I remember him posting another rock shot from this location that others thought too light so he posted a shorter exposed version too for comparison (see Pink Ocean I and Pink Ocean II). In Pink Ocean I the slight overexposure was intended and resulted in a completely different mood. More ethereal, other-worldly. It is all ones own preference at the end of the day, but I would just like to say I am almost positive this one here was deliberately underexposed in order to achieve the moodiness of the dark rocks, aswell as the smoothness of the water & richer colours.

 

Congratulations on this PoW award Juergen. It's wonderful to see your work acknowledged and credited, particularly since you take such care and effort to achieve a result from a pre-conceived idea. Your portfolio contains many other worthy contenders too.

Juergen,

 

I saw this particular photo weeks ago. Thanks for your responses to my comments. Whether it's over or underexposed is something you get to decide. Since you work with it in photoshop you might consider a four seasons look to please everyone. Meanwhile, keep shooting your way and posting. Say where's the picture for my office?!

Brian Mottershead wrote: I am sure that when Juergen has collected his thoughts, he will speak for himself; however, I suspect that what is on display is what he visualized. Probably he exposed for the sky, knowing that this would underexpose the foreground and render it dark

 

Brian, you seem to have overlooked the third contribution of this thread were Juergen stated that in this picture his emphasis was on the foreground, not on the sky.

Frank, I don't think it is a contradiction. I said he probably exposed for the sky and lengthened the exposure to blur the sea. The effect was to make the foreground dark and moody, and because of the sea, dreamlike. Of course, he could have gone about metering the scene and establishing the exposure other ways. My real point is that I am almost certain that he visualized the result.

OK, I think I arrived at this conclusion once before and I should have just kept my mouth shut.

 

From what I understand Juergen wanted to have a dark murky/moody foreground with little detail, he wanted to make this the main focus of the picture, he has achieved what he set out to do, and who are we to question the value of this endeavour.

Beautifuly composed and exposed. When people oogle of their sunset photos they should pull this up to ground them. Great folder.

Thanks for a good photo to discuss/look at all week. One can only imagine what the photographer was thinking, you had good explainations and your tech work is well above average.

Late in the game again with a quick few thoughts...

 

It's a beautiful picture with a good balance of colorful sky, dark-but-with-some-detail foreground, and blurred water. The panoramic format is excellently applied here. I'm not looking closely enough to judge the stitching work, but it's certainly sufficient for this display.

 

There are a few recommendations for use of a split ND grad. I think it would be problematic given the rise of the rocks on the left-hand side of the frame. The diffuse, even light on the rocks is part of the success of the image, and to mar it by forcing the left side to be uneven I think probably wouldn't be worth the benefits the ND would impart, but of course that's just my opinion.

 

I will certainly agree that some of the complaints about the image are valid. The darkness won't appeal to everyone, and the "black hole" under the rock is unfortunate. [i'm not sure I want to join the debate created by 0, 0, 0 values. To my mind it indicates that there was no detail and areas around it were lightened, but I look forward to Juergen's thoughts on that should he choose to share them.]

 

Nonetheless, what makes the picture feel dark and moody to me isn't the rocks, it's the grey mass of water. Blurred water is a beatiful thing, and especially (again, in my opinion) when there is some color to it. In this scene, at this moment, Juergen was not presented with an opportunity to catch color in the water due to the time, but given that lack of color, it seems to be a very large element. Perhaps a little more of the rocks and sky, with enough water for feeling but not as much weight, would make the image appeal more to me. However, that's forcing my own thoughts - probably unnecessarily - where I can appreciate the vision and execution of the photographer here.

 

There's a part of me that's still uncomfortable with "digitally created" images, but here a) it's immediately disclosed, and b) it doesn't seem that elements were created from scratch or removed. Thus, I appreciate this image more than some in the folder that are a little too otherworldly for my taste.

 

Enjoy.

How can you even attempt to "brighten" this image with your "expert" tricks and criticism.

This is one of the most intriguing examples of interpretive landscape photography. After all it's artist's emotions, thoughts, that make us feel better today, when we experience his/her art and not technical or even aesthetical canons we learned and incorporated in our private very much cherished opinions.

So, now learn to accept little disturbance in the windmills of your minds and enjoy the Mystery - (wasn't that what Einstein found to be the most fascinating of human experiences?)of this just beautiful, hidden in the shadow of the artist's feeling, dreaming seascape.

 

 

a very lovely photo!! i especially like the mist and color of the sky... did you use a fisheye lens? ... Michael, a fellow photographer.... weber26@hotmail.com

Juergen, my late congrats to your WOP! Its really dreamlike, moody, very well composed and executed! In the time of computer, it is almost unbelievable that such an exotic color tone really comes straightly from the camera. Personally, I dont like the idea of a higher exposure. It would change this outstanding picture to a trivial shot.