Beach_Sunset

Richard, I finally found an easier way to view your attachment:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DXAp

 

It involves going to the POW forum page and clicking on the title of the picture in question.

 

There has got to be an easier way.

 

--Lannie

Finally, Richard, the easiest way is just to upload it as an inline photo, being sure that (1) it is not wider than 511 pixels and (2) it has a title.

 

I personally think that your reconstruction is good enough to be made viewable by a wider audience. Sorry for meddling, but this is too good to go to waste.

 

--Lannie

Now we are talking. That's all I wanted in the original piece, is that asking too much? Don't think so. If it does not get all the raves, the heck with the amateurs that don't know their pixel from a hole in the ground.

 

Thanks Lannie for posting his rendition.

Marc G: "My verdict: a decent execution of a very poor vision."

 

Or maybe a poor execution of a decent vision?

 

Eric: "a seemingly large number of people really LOVE it the way it is - I think precisely because it is not very believable. "

 

I dont know if it is because it is unbelievable per se. It could just be without any directed consideration as to whether it?s realistic or not. Seasoned scrutinizers aside, others might more readily stretch the limits of their belief so as to better enjoy the ride (not unlike other convictions we might have), or else in deferral to the photographer?s expanded opportunities to experience the conditions depicted.

 

Lannie: Thanks.

I must sadly agree with the statement that this pic is unbelievable as it is. In fact having a close look at it one may ask : where the heck is the light in the forefront coming from if the sun has already set behing the hills in the background?. Now it maybe true that photography is not yust a pedantic copy of reality, but on the other hand I believe that according to its tradition (e.g. Adams and the concept of "found" images) it should be more close to reality than for example painting. .

Vincenzo, the sun was almost behind the mountain, and the light was diffused by the cloud. That's the magic moment.

Congratulations on a great image!

Congratulation Dave, This photo merit on POW.

Amaizing, es impresionante la forma en la que se captura la luz, this is a dream photography... lovley...

 

7/7

The foreground is interesting, the background from the center section upward just doesn't cut it for me. Its of a snapshot variety with little or no detail. The challenge is to pull it off without filters and photoshop tricks.

Beautiful light on the rich testure of land !

 

From my taste, color a bit dull and over smooth (CMOS+filter+Mutil-Coating lens), not suitable for large enlargment and time to time appreciation.

"The challenge is to pull it off without filters and photoshop tricks."

 

Ever hear of Ansel Adams, John? He was quite the filter and darkroom "tricks" man, from what I have read.

I like the pic, a lot, aside from the technical issues.

You rarely see people taking any pics in this fjord by the water or even walking by the water for that matter.

The Boar tide can be raging and the silt can make it like quicksand.

Well done.

About Ansel: absolutely true. I have pictures of his multi-light enlarging unit. But he didn't take snapshots, and images that were slightly "off" were promptly destroyed.

John, with all due respect for your opinion, I don't think that this photo should be numbered with those that are sufficiently "slightly off" as to be discarded. The general tenor of the discussion has not been whether or not to discard this capture, but how to make the most of it. Reconciling the foreground and background has been a challenge from the beginning for some of us, and several persons have tried to see if they could offer alternative treatments that are consistent with their own artistic vision of the entire frame. Some frankly like it as is, perhaps because of its surreal or near-surreal color effects. I can appreciate it on that level myself, even if it leaves me somewhat dissatisfied. Others like it for the foreground, which I frankly find quite dazzling. I could get lost in those details.

 

I rather think that Michael Seewald's crop is the most effective treatment overall, but I still respect Richard and others for seeing what they could do with the entire frame. Given the vagaries of monitors (both calibrated and uncalibrated, like my five-year-old Trinitron), I am loathe to say what works best for me on the screen, much less to offer an opinion as to what might work better as a print.

 

In any case, was it not Adams himself who said that photography begins after the photo is taken, or words to that effect? Somewhere between an uncritical "Wow!" and total rejection is the interesting territory of precisely how to get the most out of this one--and all of them that are worth anything. I happen to think that Dave has captured something very special here, or I would not waste my time on it; and I am a bit sorry to think how much he has to endured with our experimenting with his photo. I suspect, however, that he is happier with all of that than with the de facto indifference of "Wow!" or "Terrible!" As in photography as in philosophy, the worst thing is not rejection, but indifference, and it is almost impossible to be indifferent to this picture. Whatever else it is, it is interesting, and it has been a challenge to speculate on how it might have been done even better.

 

This photo has clearly earned the right to be named Photo of the Week precisely because it has attracted such a variety of critical comments. Long live reasoned dissent.

 

--Lannie

With all the "fixes" that everyone (including Dave K) has subsequently made, I have to say that I prefer the original photo image presented here as Photo of the Week, which is outstanding. Cheers, GBerry 7/7

what a beautiful shot - full of colour, clarity and sharpness. It is done technically superb, full respect to the author.

I don't know if it is fair to put a traditional sea-sunset shot as a photo of the week, given so many original photos are available, but that's a quesiton of choice, I suppose.

The shot is however done seamlessly well!

Galia, Dave has not offered any "fixes" on this thread, unless he has replaced the original posting with a modified version.

 

Dave, how bad is the tidal bore in this area, and what is the usual tidal range this far up the "fjord" from Anchorage? (Tidal range typically varies with the phase of the moon.) When you say "beyond" Girdwood, do you mean further to the east away from Anchorage, or back the other direction? I have been assuming that we have been looking generally westward at sunset, but for all I know this could have been made in the early morning.

 

I understand that these facts have nothing to do with evaluating the photo, but wilderness can be deceptive, especially since Girdwood is primarily known as a skiing resort area. I am sometimes struck by the fact that few photographers often go very far into the true wilderness to get their wild-looking pictures (and not just because of the difficulties of hauling tripod and other gear), but this looks pretty wild to me, perhaps more easily accessible by kayak than on foot. Then again, for all I know, it might have been shot less than a mile from a road or parking lot.

 

I was a wilderness freak a long time before I was a photographer, and so I like to know just what slice of wilderness I am looking at. As you know, the widerness experience cannot be captured on film, but that doesn't keep some of us from wanting to be there.

 

Most of all, when I see an apparently wild shot which apparently was made at sunset, in the back of my mind I am usually asking, "How far back to civilization before night closes down?" I have stumbled back into camp or to the trail head too many times in semi-darkness not to want to know such things. This footing looks particularly treacherous, especially if the tide or terrain made hiking along the banks impossible.

 

--Lannie

As you mentioned, I have not offered any fixes and I also have not replaced the original image.

 

As far as the tides?..The difference from high to low tide can be as much as 33 feet. Bore tides in Turnagain Arm range from 2 to 6 feet high and travel between 10 and 15 mph. You can hear the bore tide as it comes in.

 

This was taken just a few miles past the turn off to Girdwood and is looking west back towards Anchorage. The location is not far from the road. It was taken at low tide down a steep rocky shoreline. The silt in the image is not safe to walk on. People have been known to have gotten stuck it and drown when the tide comes in on them.

 

I do appreciate your comments, Lannie and everyone else?s on the image. I have heard a wide range of opinions but from the POW forum it seems primarily negative. I am always interested in learning and improvin..... And I have learned a few things this last week.

 

Thanks

Dave K

Just a late note to say this: the version uploaded by Richard may not be quite there yet, but I think it's a very good step in the right direction.

 

And here are a couple of things I should have said last week too:

 

1) I do not find the composition unbalanced. I like M. Seewald's suggestion, but that's a different photo, and I think a very mild crop at top and left on the original, or even the original without any crop are ok too.

 

2) I don't hate this picture at all. :-) Sorry I was a bit harsh, pointing almost exclusively at the negatives: what I didn't like was "color" and "contrast", but this shot can be rescued, without a doubt.

 

PS: I still prefer other shots of yours, but bottom right here is really beautiful. Cheers.

In reference to the above I was discussing the discarding of images by Ansel Adams, NOT the one above. I don't think Adams was into the style of photography as shown here. Some sample of Adams interpretation of exposure can be found on this netsite http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/collections/manzanar/langarts1.html.

I got very tired of that image.

Dave,

I am strictly an amateur and cannot speak to the others criticism at all in a technical way. But what about the fact that the pictures really grabs me? Yes there appears some surreal aspect to the picture, but that seems to be exactly what draws me. What little pictures I have taken in the outdoors, my favorite, I do know that some really strange things come up; and I bet others have seen that and "created" them. I love it and I haven't seen your portfolio which I will do next and I still think I will love it. Just an amateur. Jim

Dave, personally i love it. Frankly I don't give a hoot about the technical side of the photoographic process in regards to this photo, all I know is I love it. If I had created this piece of art I would be as proud as punch, as you should be. Lets face it photography is art and should be treated as such, as long as you the creator like what you have done what else matters.

looks almost like a fisheye effect so I'd guess Sigma 10-20...