Beach_Sunset

We are an opinionated bunch, but most of us are well-adjusted enough not to take too much of it too personally. My comment above, though a bit negative, is just a reflection of my own tastes. The photographer who shot it did a terrific job. I particularly like the job he did on focusing (it looks as though he used a view camera and tilted the front or rear standard (or perhaps both) to get the foreground in sharp focus). Nevertheless, the shot is just not my cup of tea. In any case, I have a preference for black and white, anyway, so perhaps my opinion would be different if the shot were in black and white.

I have to agree with Michael that it just looks un-real to me. Not sure I can pin-point it, but the bottom right is so refined and sharp, and the bottom left is so loose and smudgy. Doesn't seem to balance for me. Certainly a nice enough image, and very impressive for the first few seconds. Then the strain sets in of trying to resolve the conflicts. So I will let the much more qualified do that. Congratulations on POW, and have fun.

Scott

 

Filters are not supposed to make an image look more real, so I can't understand your argument about the "artificial" look of the image resulting from improper use of the ND. It looks artificial - and it should, because the purpose of a filter is just that: to create an artificial to-go-to-be-true, enhanced, unnatural look.

Matt, not really. Filters (like split ND that AREN'T tinted) are used to help make up for the fact that our eyes see's a much greater dynamic range than a camera can. A good use of a split ND would almost be transparent to the viewer. Keeping a sky from blowing out but not to overt that it looks un-natural. Go look at Fitzharris', Lepps or any other brilliant landscape artist. They use ND's all the time and 95% of the time you can't even tell.

They don't use it to change their view of the world, they use it to help make up for the lack of dynamic range a camera has when compaired to our orbs.

I like the X pattern from foreground to mid. The leading line takes the viewer toward, but also away from the sun as it bends to the left. I think that makes the composition interesting.

 

I don't care for the lack of tonal changes in the foreground land and also the water. It almost looks like flash was used. Although there is color change, there is very little brightness change in the water, which could also be used to draw the viewer toward the sun, just as the land takes the viewer away to the left. The water should start out darker and become lighter as it approaches the sun.

 

The foreground land details have an unnatural appearance. The sand looks like melted plastic. Perhaps making the bottom 2/3 darker to match the top would improve the continuity, rather than lightening the top, which looks pretty to me.

 

My least important thought is why use a grad ND filter. I don't have a problem with the black mountains, but personally I wouldn't have used an ND grad on this photo. There isn't enough separation between the sun and the mountains and there is an irregular line to cross. Why not join a few frames in PS and get some detail in the distant black mountains?

lol Thanks for clearing that up, Dave... as you can tell I haven't used one myself so I should probably keep my yap shut ;)

stunning photo!! and if it were mine, I'd be very proud of it just the way it was submitted.

 

That said, I've seen SO many others like it before... This photographer is wonderful! his work is beautiful.. but if you look at the rest of his work, there are many similar.

 

I'm VERY impressed by the aethetics... it's gorgeous! But it's very far from original.. and again... that said... I wish I'd done it.. ;o)

While I feel the composition of this photograph is enjoyable, I am going to agree with those members who feel that this photograph is not really up to par with the best works on this site. Eaton, Nitsche, Roosien and others refer to the excessive, perhaps even amateurish, use of the grad filter. Cottrill sums it up quite accurately as a "formula shot". Being one who has tried to use the ND technique myself I can say that too do it effectively is not easy; effective use being defined as undetectible use.

It is all too obvious what has been done here. If the photographer would have excersized more restraint, if he had used a 0.6 soft or a blender instead of the 3 stop grad employed here, then perhaps the effect would have been more in keeping with how the eye and mind would interepret this scene.

Let's be honest here people: the mountains and midground are too dark. This distracts the critical observer from enjoying the photograph. This would not be a publishable image Regards.

The first two things I ask myself when looking at my art (or someone's I'm critiquing) is where is the strength and where is the weakness? (This is so when I'm done cropping I can make sure I did not get goofy and crop the strength, which happens if you're not careful).

 

As the strength is the bottom 2/3rds of this image, and the top is the weakness, I would not be adverse to cut it off, thus keeping folks eye in my art a lot longer; the premise I work with as bottom line for a successful image.

 

Rule #43, "don't fall in love with any one thing" (in your photo) it may have to go (not really rule #43, I pull numbers out of the air for them as there are so many- a lot of which I've formulated over the years myself, like rule #43, cause it works). I reason for it this way, which may not be pretty but gets my point across to my students; you may love your arm, but if it has gang-green you would not say, but I love my arm, don't cut it off! (Well you may, but it would cost you your life). The same with cropping- to save an image sometimes you may have to cut something off to 'save the piece overall', even a part you thought was important at first, even if a lot less important than other parts. Heck, just get a fisheye and include the whole world if you need the whole world in every image. Remember, it's not what you include, but what you exclude that makes the art great. I don't critique my own art for at least 6 months after creating it. That way I can look at it like it was one of my students and not mine, allowing me to more easily crop off parts I may have almost died to originally include in it. Almost dying to include it is not a good enough reason to leave it in if it ultimately makes the image less strong, right? Right. Besides, it's easier to cut someone else's arm off instead of my own!

Mike, like your crop a lot more, but still about as interesting as a ham sandwich. LOL. I look at that section and think of all the interesting textures that were available. I remember reading an article by a photographer once (name eludes me) and he said that the biggest problem most photographers have is getting closer. The instinct is to always pull back for fear of losing something. I keep that in mind always when I shoot. Even landscapes.

 

Another thing I notice about this image. Why was it taken at head height? Might have been a bit more intesting at a foot or two. The foreground is too 'looked down upon".

Poor Dave K. probably has his thumb in his mouth as he sits in a corner rocking back and forth by now.

 

I don't know anything about the use of an ND grad filter, but regardless, I like the affect here of the darker background leading to the lighter foreground. As the previous crop shows, the shoreline is the stronger element, and I think that's where the eye is lead. To me, the mountains and sunset add much more interest to the photograph than cropping it for just the shoreline. I don't know that the POW is supposed to represent the "best" work out here as much as it's supposed to generate conversation, and this selection certainly has succeeded in that regard. Trying to prove your opinion is "right" with regard to art is a fruitless endeavor, but certainly provides for some interesting discussion.

Before you bite the Godiva, make sure it's not the rock from Alaska. It's a tasty image and could be better.

To add fuel to the discussion. Here is an attempt to reverse some of the ND effect. ( just to illustrate ) With some interest in the upper left composition seems stronger.

Definitely not your typical beach. Seems alien to me. I like it with and without the ND affect. I'm no expert, but the ND filter seems to make the sunset colors of the sky look more deeply rich to me. I noticed the sunrise in some photos I shot recently, and how the exposure for the foreground was too dark when the exposure for the sunrise sky looked best to me. I'm sure this is what Dave was trying to correct when he made this image, and I congratulate him on his success. I love this cool (and warm at the same time) image.

Well, like everybody else here, I too have a few opinions. Agree with most that the ND was mis-used in this case. In fact, under these circumstances, I am not so sure one was even needed here. For one thing the sun is obscured with a rather thick blanket of cirrus clouds. And secondly, it is setting very low AND practically behind the mountain. Perhaps a .3 ND grad. would work fine, IF any was used at all. Personally, I would have shot this with a .3ND grad, a polarizer exclusively, and then nothing at all. And yes while I'm at it I would have tried a sunset colored graduated filter as well. THEN, after getting the film back and going to the lightbox, I would have many different options to choose from, with a variety of looks, and could then use the one that worked the best for the needed application. There is no way I would just limit myself to this one very strong filter under these type of conditions.

 

However something else needs to be mentioned here: This issue about over-use of an ND is something that most likely would NOT be picked apart, or even noticed by the general population. I am speaking from experience here. If this were for sale as a fine-art print at some gift shop or gallery in Alaska, I would guess it would be a very good selling image just as it's posted here. ONLY we as photographers or professional editors would even recognize this is a problem at all. I have seen junk sell to the buying public on a regular basis. Think about it, how many "Joe Tourists" are going to come up with something like this image in their entire lifetime? In fact, I'd be willing to ask, how many of YOU (who've commented here) have a sunset image this powerful, colorful and impactful in your folders? I seriously doubt if any of you have something like this at all. Trust me, I've been around for a while, and you don't see many like this even with the obvious technical flaws. Does Dave deserve the knocks he's getting for this image? Well, yes he does, especially if he chooses to post on a site like this where other professionals and hobbyists alike are available to critique. Hopefully, if you are watching this Dave, you will use this as an opportunity to learn from your mistakes anad actually welcome the feedback that will help you to improve the next time you do pick up a camera. For what it's worth I also think the composition is outstanding here, as is the case with many images in your folder. But as you can read above, it's not just about composition or color. There are technical issues involved that could take this one to another level. Hopefully you will see this as an opportunity to do just that!

It's hard to tell how large the objects in the foreground are, or how far away they were when the image was taken. Actually, the foreground looks just like hunks of milk chocolate--kind of yummy. I like the picture for its apparent sweetness.

"In fact, I'd be willing to ask, how many of YOU (who've commented here) have a sunset image this powerful, colorful and impactful in your folders? I seriously doubt if any of you have something like this at all." VKT

 

Hold the darts, I take some of that back, there are some very nice sunsets in a few of your folders. The point is though, Ma and Pa snapshooter will likely never come up with something like this on their own as long as they live. This would still be a popular, saleable image in my opinion (to the public) regardless of the technical flaws. There are many here on this site whose images we could not quite say that about regardless of how technically "perfect" they might be...

"This would still be a popular, saleable image in my opinion..."

 

I suspect you're right Vincent. As I said, this approach actually adds to the 'otherworldliness' of the scene which is something people really respond to. And something I think a lot (the majority even?) of people have already responded to positively. I think it's an interesting decision - do you 'milk' it? Depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish I guess. If your goal is to sell as many prints as possible to tourists this might in fact be a more successful photograph than a 'technically correct' one.

 

Cheers,

Eric

Regardless of what others and I have said about the ND grad and/or the post-processing, the fact is that this is a great capture. I really like Michael's radical crop, but I also think that the entire composition was worth capturing pretty much as it is. No, it is not perfect (What is?), but I doubt that it bothers Dave very much to see this level of disagreement. He knew the effect that he was striving for, and he got it. He also knows the site. Nobody is panning this image. No one is saying that it is a terrible photo. We all acknowledge the strengths of the photo, especially the original capture. Those of us who are disagreeing are not saying that it is terrible picture, simply that our tastes differ. If I were Dave, I would be very proud of this shot and probably fairly indifferent to the fact that others are critical of it.

 

I frankly think that this has been a constructive and civil exchange. Persons are disagreeing about the usual things in the usual predictable ways. There is a lot of food for thought in all of the criticisms.

 

Congratulations again, Dave, on getting Photo of the Week. I happen to like some of your others better, but we have all heard that refrain before as well.

 

--Lannie

Vince, I guess it depends on where your coming from. Sellable? Probably, in some arena's but for how much? $100 for a 12x18? 60? 40? 25? Anything is sellable really, for how much is the more important question. Brandenburg sells 12x18 prints for 300 a piece. Is that how we judge how good a sellable image is? By cost comparison?

 

I know lots of people that sell images and as we both know that isn't generally (if ever) a determining factor for 'good'. I have seen some pretty damn horrible images sell. Doesn't make them good IMO.

 

My comments in this forum (and just about any online photosite) delves more into the art aspect of photography and not the commercial aspect. Are my comments infinitely more critical than the general public? Sure. I would hope they are. I would like to think (maybe incorrectly LOL) that on an art tip, my comments would be more valuable for someone looking to improve than just judging by someone willing to throw down $50 bucks for a print. The goal should be to get to the $300+ Brandenburg level if commercial sales are the goal. That requires technical perfection PLUS emotional contact with the viewer. Something that Jim soars at...

To achieve this amount of details in the foreground, 2, 3 stops might be a good choice for the Canon sensor. I had tried the 1 stop in similar situation, just can't get enough details. I'd rather increase the exposure on the top part of second layer during the post processing.

Most images posted on this site would not be sellable as fine-art in my opinion. Not even close in fact. I guess my point Dave is that this particular image here still has a bit going for it. I'd suspect a few people might even pay the bigger bucks for this if it were available as fine-art. Certainly I see this as worth more than just a "ham sandwhich" as you mentioned above. The over-use of the ND grad filter does detract from the professional quality for me. But it does not kill the image entirely, and for many it would not make any difference at all. Basically the areas affected are just too dark.

 

Dave K. has some nice colorful folders. More than just a few are very well composed with dramatic lighting and interesting landscape. I do see a tendency for his images to be somewhat redundant though.

I think you've raised what is really the crux of the issue - how does one define 'good'? I think this can only be determined relative to what someone is trying to accomplish. Is Dave K trying to be the next Jim Brandenburg? Does he want to sell his prints for $300.00 a piece? Or perhaps he aspires to having an exhibition at the Yossi Milo gallery in New York and would like to sell his work in editions of 10 for $5000.00 a piece? Or maybe he's happy to sell them for $20.00 a piece at art fairs or over the internet? Or perhaps he's just doing it because he enjoys it and doesn't especially care if he ever sells something to anyone - and just likes the way it looks. Or maybe he aspires to totally redefine peoples expectations for photography and seeks to follow in nobodies path?

Vince, I guess we will just disagree on this one. I would doubt anyone would hunk down big money on this image. Some of his others maybe. The landscape market is so darn saturated that great, well known artists with internation exposure are selling images like this for $150 or lower for a 12x18. Again it depends on the value of sales we think are good. His rating record is probably a hinderance to him. I bet up until this point he thought this image was the best ever shot judging by the comments above. If he reads this thread he can go two ways. Listen and absorb or think that some under Patricks initial POW comments are out fo their bird. Well, I fall under that description, but I still think my comments are right on.

 

Eric, exactly!!! I always go under your last premise. That most shoot for self satisfaction and the throngs of their contemporaries. Most I have found fall into that catagory. Some toy with sales and shows but for most it is not a priority or a want. That's what I base my thoughts on. Is he trying to be the next Jim? Nope is my guess. Is he trying to be the best he can be? Maybe. Is he trying to please a crowd? Who knows, but it would be nice to hear his thoughts.

It's the man's vision. Let him do what he wants with it. Looks great.