Europe's largest glacier and the Jungfrau Region

This was taken from the Eggishorn (2926 Meters above sea) - Thank you

for your critique!

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

 

I don't think the low ratings have ANYTHING to do with the cross. In my opinion there are many other things about the image that might warrant a low rating, mainly technique (choice of panoramic crop, angle) and aesthetics (contrast, perspective/distortion, haze etc). Originality is tough in this case, some people can appreciate the rare circumstance of a cross with mountains as a backdrop; while others think they've been there, seen that in terms of 'scenic mountain' composition.

 

The originality average could be a little higher imo, simply because of the strange subject matter/circumstance. However, it often takes more than just unique subject matter to gain higher originality ratings... you need to frame a more dramatic composition that does more than just document the scene. Artistic intent, if you will. That feeling of being there needs to be communicated to the viewer better.

 

As I hinted earlier, I don't think going panoramic here was a good idea. More foreground could have helped establish a stronger sense of grandeur and "position". Also, with respect to the cross, it is oddly placed - close to the edge of frame... this, combined with it's linear nature, make it an easy meal for wide-angle distortion and critics that like everything perfectly level. Personally I don't usually mind some distortion here and there, but when it comes to a shot like this that tries to place so much emphasis on a linear object, distortion can easily become a technical distraction. Some lens corrections or a slight rotation and re-crop in your photo editor could easily compensate for this.

 

Lighting is also a draw back. It's hard to judge what time the image was taken at, but the lighting appears harsh, or else the exposure is slightly off. If at all possible, I would have come back or waited for more flattering lighting conditions... late evening or early morning with longer shadows, darker highlights, and richer tones. If re-shooting is not an option, the lighting and tones can also be corrected with photo-editing software, or in the conventional b/w darkroom. I might even suggest a colour rendition of the scene; perhaps converting to black and white hasn't done it justice.

 

Regards,

Matt, Thank you for your really very good critique. And I agree with you in most aspects.

 

Regarding panoramic view - you are right and I prefer the tele normally. Here I just wanted to try how it looks with wide angle (10-22 mm) and there was not a lot of space in the foreground because my wife was there and other tourists were behind me. - But I made some other shots with a Tele from here.

 

Regarding distortion, to be honest I intensively corrected it with PS because it was much worse.

 

Regarding time of the day it was around 1 PM on a bit hazy day. This is in my opinion one of the big issues in mountain photography because you get really often a flat impression which you can't correct with PS work.

But on the other hand side you can't motivate your wife to get up early in the morning. From my perspective the whole thing works better even around noon when you have some clouds and/or fog in the valley.

 

Regarding B/W - I just wanted to add this picture to other B/W which I took two years ago from the opposite side - the Jungfraujoch.

 

 

 

 

 

But the thing is, giving this a 1 or a 2 on originality is just insane....I mean, if I were to not bathe for a month, take a photograph of my big toe (with toejam) and post it, THAT would justify a 1 or a 2. In all honesty, I think I'd give this a 4 on originality (its average, for my taste...I think its a shot that a lot of people would have done when presented with the same scene)....aesthetically, it doesn't really float my boat...I'd MUCH rather see it in color....but then again, I didn't SHOOT it, and it isn't MY shot, lol....so I'd probably give it a 5 on aesthetics (because I *can* see how some people might be aesthetically enamored with it, its just that I'm not).

 

I agree with the cropping/choice of placement of the horizon...Ida maybe mighta (if I would have been there, which I wasn't and have NO idea what's out of frame) gone with a 1/3 sky, 2/3 ground? Maybe? That would put the cross in the central third, I might have even put the cross RIGHT on the horizontal left 1/3 line?? But then that shot would be a compositional cliche, and I'd still give my own shot (if Ida shot it) a 4 on originality. Really really hard to get originality in landscapes I think, they've already been done.

 

I might have gone a little higher on the contrast, for more overall density, but that might cause some problems for the peak behind the cross (dunno)...

 

AND that brings me to the question of why the ratings matter anyway (I do like the shot, by the way, just not completely, slackjawed floored by it). I get an occasional 2 on a shot (and in all honesty, its often on nudes, and I've finaly figured out that some people must be rating nudes religiously, lol)...I also get people who say things like "bad skin tones, too yellow" on a color photo of an Asian woman....ermmm....well....I actually held the model's arm up to the monitor and guess what....it was perfect...and that guy gave me a 2 on aesthetics (with a genreous 3 on originality, he he). I actually got a laugh outta that one.

 

Don't worry about the ratings, pay attention to the critiques, but don't be afraid to even chuck THOSE out with the bathwater (errr, especially long rambling ones like mine).

 

My real point is that this is NOT a bad picture, its VERY different than what I would have shot...there are aspects of it that for *my* taste aren't quite poifect, but that difference in how people shoot the same subject is one of the fun things about life ;-).

from your post.

 

Yes, I KNOW some people don't like religion and will react without reason to it... same as some other people I know who react without reason in supporting it. if you ever put these people together then ,, it is kind of fun. If you post anything that could be controversial,, religion, nudes, death,, etc. you will receive a few negative reaction... expect it. and don't worry about it.

 

this photo by the way is ok. I kind of like the mountains in the background and the cross is really of no real significance to me. I can see how if one were christian one would like this image though. I think the name might be misleading in a form. the average rating seems to suit this work. and if you hadn't received low scores then the resulting all high scores would seem equally extreme.

Thanks ENIGMA, Thanks Byron - it was a pleasure to read your contributions.

I have shot a few mountain tops as well, and I have a few comments on this shot. The philosophical questions you raised elsewhere are answered there.

I have liked your glacier patterns in other shots and like other works from your portfolio but

I have three main problems with this image.

The light. This should be with the sun almost as high as it gets, and you have no hopes of rendering such an immense scenario at that hour. I know it sounds crazy, but in these conditions I often do not even get the camera out of the bag, most often after having carried it all the way up

The perspective of the cross/mountain tops has something strange to it. Here you need sky to accomodate the cross, but all this sky dwarfes some of the most beautiful mountains of Europe, and this flattens the shapes of the landscape, as much as the light is not beneficial to the texture of the glacier. A suggestion in this case is to try and lay down to exaggerate the effect to your advantage, with a big cross almost all against the sky. Here, the left arm of the cross cuts a mountain top.

The sharp shadow of the cross on the stone behind it seems to be a bit out of place, I do not know exactly why.

Hope this helps. Cheers, s.

Hello Thomas,

 

I followed the thread from the sitefeed back forum.

 

When I first viewed the photo, I thought the cross was put in via Photoshop. It is a possibility that the low ratings stem from that line of thought.

 

~Glen

Salvatore, thank you for your critique - I agree with it, especially with the "high noon" light conditions.

 

Glen, I can understand this, it may be because I corrected the distortion extremely - I add the original colour photo.