Untitled

Gary, I see you use negative space in your work- for balance, and you use it well. But this bottom area for one, is not negative space, as it has detail. It is 'excess' space and is not balancing out the main center of interest- that big rock. Nothing wrong with using space, no one is in fear of it here, IF used properly.

 

There is also a 'tension point' being created by the top rock having a point so near the top. Here is a fact; tension points create tension, thus the name. A tension point is defined as a place where the eye has a hard time escaping from, due to, you guessed it, tension. As is taught by the masters, or one learns over the years by studying them, one gets rid of the tension by either cropping it off or giving it space (but I've discovered a third way, you can balance a tension point with another tension point at the opposite end, but then we are back to balance, aren't we?). I don't know if the artist has more detail above it that he could include, as that would help, but it would still be out of balance if you did have a little more.

 

Bottom line, we want to have images where folks look at (appreciate) them for a longer time than if we did not 'fix' a problem, at least I do. But the more the 'eye' tells us it's off balance, the quicker we are to turn away from the image- thus so many strong opinions about it being off balance- most see it, some don't.

 

I don't know about you, but my number one goal is to make art so strong as to elicit statements like one critic said about it, 'each piece, you go in and you don't come out'.

I haven't posted on photo.net in forever, but this particular image sparked me to rattle on a little.

 

I am so tired of high contrast blurry water, fog, clouds and things covered up by blurry water, fog, and clouds. Some of your landscapes are very well done, this one is a mediocre shot fancied up with some blur and a heavy mouse finger on curves in photoshop. It's unusual and thats about all.

 

It's like a bad song...you can't make a bad song great no matter how many amazing musicians you have playing on it or how many times the bad chorus repeats. It will always be a bad song. No amount of positioning/cropping/contrast/blurry water fog mist will make this a great photo. It will always be a mediocre shot.

 

That said, I enjoy some of your other work. Large format should be your tool of choice, some of those good shots would be great with a few simple movements.

Hey everyone! I finally got my aesthetometer up and running, and after 27 straight hours of automatically crawling PN and evaluating the photos of all PN paying members (paying members only, because we all know they're more serious) with average aesthetics ratings of at least 6.0, it is now calibrated to determine the absolute aesthetic value of any photo. What's more, I've perfected an interface between the aesthetometer and my own crop-o-matic and auto-adjust programs so that, together, the programs can evaluate all possible crops and levels/curves/hue/saturation/texture/etc. adjustments of a photograph and determine the highest aesthetics rating it could possibly achieve. The result is above, and it reads out at a very impressive 6.883 on the aesthetometer (sorry, readings are only significant to three decimal places, so it would be irresponsible for me to release the other 72 digits it calculated). Note that the crop-o-matic only permitted aspect ratios of 3:2 or 2:3 because this photo was taken with a Nikon D70 (what this really shows is how the photographer should have framed the photograph).

All new technologies have unforeseen consequences, of course, and now that I think this over a bit, I guess this will put a quick end to all future discussions of aesthetics in the POW forum. I suppose it will make rating aesthetics obsolete as well. For this I apologize. We can all still discuss originality, though, at least until I perfect my Standardized Originality Test. At the moment, the beta version seems to consistently return the aesthetics rating plus or minus exactly 0.272, which doesn't seem quite right to me, but once I've worked out this minor detail, I'll turn all the programs over to Brian Mottershead to be implemented automatically on every photo uploaded to PN. We can soon look forward to the day when you can upload a photo to PN and know within seconds exactly how aesthetically pleasing and original it is, and be shown the one true crop that will maximize the photo's absolute aesthetic potential!

I can never figure out where a photo will appear (above or below) when I attach it. I should have said "below" above, when I referred to the above photo, because it wound up below, not above, my post. Sorry for any confusion.

The photo I posted was below my original post before, I swear it was! Now it's above, but I cannot guarantee that it will remain there. All I can say now is that the photo nearest my original post is the best possible crop, as determined by science.

About the picture itself, I think there is too little space at the top and right. The bottom could be cropped to add some balance.

 

I would like to add some discussion. I think we have many pictures with this tone lately: Dark images but with shadow detail. There are a lot of photographers that devote theirselves entirely to this kind of photography.

 

What I realize is that this is an evident result of the technology available. Digital cameras with much shadow detail and Shadow/Highlight function on Photoshop provide the possibility to achieve these results, which were harder to do on an enlarger (much masking, dodging and burning).

 

So what I question is if it is just me that thinks this way and if it's a good thing to have photos conditioned by the technology.

 

I think it's really nice to have the technology helping us to broad our vision and achieve new results. And the results are terrific, don't get me wrong! But there are soooo many new shooters that are doing this kind of photography (even myself).

 

Well, just trying to add some discussion :)

 

Cheers

 

Carlos, Congratulations for the photo. Really beautiful.

Gary...let's not take it to the personal side

 

What's the point of critique if someone can't express what they think, see and feel?

 

You think it's a nice composition and crop. Some people think it's not. And that's the beauty of the critique process and the art itself ;)

 

There is no need to diss the critics...

 

Cheers

This is a nice image. The B&W conversion looks very well done, e.g.. good

contrast and hightlight/shadow detail. Silky water due to long exposure is

always a winner. Still, this is a fairly mundane image that has been done

many times - just scour photo.net and I am sure you'll find dozens like this

one. Nice image tho'. Cheers!

I agree, a critique should be a personal view, my problem is when critics say an artist should have taken a particular shot this or that way ................. the whole point of any work of art is that it is concieved in the artists mind and it is his or her vision that is on offer and not the critics.

I agree with the commenters that said this is a unoriginal, less than average attempt at what has become a cliche of a subject (static objects in blurred water). It is certainly not a photo that I would look at for more than a few seconds. Carlo's portfolio has several more interesting images. I also agree with Gary Treadwell's comments about the generally "bizarre" judging and commenting.

I don't think the image works online. Might be a fascinating, gorgeous print, depending on a printer's personal skill. Probably best above 11X14. Everything hangs on print quality in this unique case, IMO.

My initial reaction was the same as Michael's--crop the bottom for balance. I think the image works well with the bottom cropped.

 

I also like Doug's S-curve diagram. To give it more impact I think the foreground could use some not so subtle dodging to direct the viewer back to the left. I see several V shapes in the water and those are useful at directing the viewer along and around the rocks.

I agree with those that have made the remark on the blurred running water. It is deja vue and does not add to the attractiveness of a photo anymore. When used wisely in small doses, like in the POW of Lars Raun the other week, it is very effective, but here it is in my mind overdone, like in so many other cases we have seen on Photonet.

 

I would also agree with those of you that suggest to crop this weeks POW heavily to concentrate on the rock(s) where there is material for a very good black and white print.

The blur is a primary subject here, just as it is in many of Carlos' other images...here it's anchored by rock/twig, which are not as important as tone in the blur...in other images he anchors with structures protruding into water. While we can see an "S-curve" in the image, it's only a minor feature, not as important as the overall form that Carlos has expressed.

 

The exercises in cropping correction seem fearful of the sense of the image (look again at Carlos' other work). Dealing with soft subjects and not forcing them into mundane art-class frames of reference takes courage, as somebody else mentioned.

I disagree with a bottom crop on this. The image flows much more freely, offers a greater

measure of interplay between shadows and light, and allows the one viewing to continue

his journey downstream. The image uncropped has much greater mood and atmosphere in

my eyes. Yes the crop is easier or simpler to view, but does that actually make it better?

No way; it is really comparatively boring in my opinion. Sorry Michael this crop does not

improve this for me.

 

Who says there is NO texture in the water? There is plenty of that in this scene. I for one

am not a fan of overly-long exposures since texture usually gets washed right out. Not the

case at all here! A shorter exposure would still look okay, but you would begin to lose that

silky effect, which is what makes these types of scenes work so successfully. There is

plenty of texture and detail and richness throughout the water in this image.

 

I am fine with the chosen composition, though think a little more space on the left would

not hurt. The little sticks protruding up seem to go both ways for me. It can, I guess, add a

little extra element to the scene here, but I also feel it is somewhat of a distraction. If it

were my image, I'd probably clone those out.

 

Overall, this is a successful image from my perspective; one that surpasses many other

attempts at something similar due to a darker richness and interplay of light in the water

that is often lacking when one goes for the longer exposures, or when one shoots an

image like this. The darker atmosphere in this kind of scene is quite unique and makes

this one succeed for me. Very nice work.

After what Vince has just so eloquently said (and very similar to what Marc Gouguenheim said to me yesterday via e-mail), I accidentally hit whatever key it is that makes the image on the screen turn blue and faded.

 

It is in no wise an improvement on the original, and is in fact far inferior. Nonetheless, in spite of the loss of texture, there does seem to be something ethereal in it, and so I tried to reproduce it using color balance and filters.

 

No offense is intended, Carlos, to you or your wonderful photo.

 

--Lannie

After what Vince has just so eloquently said (and very similar to what Marc Gouguenheim said to me yesterday via e-mail), I accidentally hit whatever key it is that makes the image on the screen turn blue and faded.

 

It is in no wise an improvement on the original, and is in fact far inferior. Nonetheless, in spite of the loss of texture, there does seem to be something ethereal in it, and so I tried to reproduce it using color balance and filters.

 

No offense is intended, Carlos, to you or your wonderful photo.

 

--Lannie

Landrum, I like the blue version. The only problem is, it looks a bit out of balance. I'm think'n it may be bottom heavy. I don't know, what does the peanut gallery say? ;/)

Landrum's version looks way too purple to me. I'd rather see it like this.

Well this is one reason why I keep paying up I guess, you get all sorts of ideas, opinions,

facts, crops, color adjustments and for that matter might as well throw in the kitchen sink

at times. Photo.net can help anybody serious about photography to learn and usually to

get better.

 

Unfortunately, in this case, from my own personal perspective, nothing brought to the

table has improved upon the original version posted. I like Lannie and his often very

insightful comments. However the suggestion of "muted washed out sort of a blue" sample

looks rather patheticly horrendous. (I am typing this with a smile on my face Lannie). The

fact that Michael actually likes this "muted washed out sort of death blue" version only

adds to the madness here. David's version is definitely a step in the right direction in my

opinion, but still lacks the darker atmosphere and drama of the original. Still, nonetheless,

the effort is there. These efforts (yes even Lannie's) are how we all can improve... even if

only on what NOT to do...

 

: )

I was joking, I thought Lannie had lost it too. It's soft enough, why give it the death knoll and wash it out too? The color, well to each his own, right?

 

And I never mentioned it, but I too love the feeling of the wispyness here, and I never get tired of folks trying to use it to make this type of art. You could say the same about the amount of shots of kids with large, sad eyes. Yes, we've seen them before, but that challenge always is, as there is nothing new under the sun, can you make them better? If so, bravo!

I liked the version where Hollywood actress Jodie Foster was photoshopped onto the rock as if she were tragically stranded and in jeopardy of falling into the surging rapids, but I think Mary deleted it.

I can wash it out some more and make it orange, if you guys would like to see that. I'm very gifted in creating atrocities. How insipid would you like it?

 

Yes, Doug, that would be Witch Mary. I have heard of her.

 

--Lannie

I added some space to it, removed the branch and cropped a bit. Better? I don't think so but at least the 'tightness' of the frame is removed.

Darn file extension...