Untitled

Although my reaction to the photo is mixed, one thing it's got going for it that I like is a subtle s-curve concealed within its composition, but it's a little frustrating that this curve is disrupted here and there by irregular masses of lighter tone.

I'm glad that there are so many excellent compositions in Carlos' portfolio. I can't say this is one of them.

 

Whenever you have two main elements in a scene, you create tension between them. Michael's crop makes some sense out of this tension since the smaller element now serves as a clear entry, pointing towards the main subject. I can understand wanting to emphasize the aesthetics of the water after a long exposure, but it's still a background element which got way too much consideration in determining the original composition (although this is cropped, so we can't really tell how it was conceived originally.)

I am very interested in this photo because the ''subjet'' scale, Is it a large rock? This will justify the absence of continuity in the ''S'' path. If this is a large rock we may consider the limitations for composition.

I'm disturbed by the red curves. These may be the path that some eyes follow, but the water is not really following that path.

The lower s is correct, but the upper curve, as far as water flow is concerned is entirely left to right.

Perhaps as a whitewater canoeist, I "read" water differently than the regular viewer. However, If you follow the dark lines instead of the light, you may get a more useful map. I wonder when the eye follows shadows or midtones rather than highligths? Seeing this at a higher resolution might change the perception...

 

What I see when I look at the photographs is an eddy behind the smaller rock, a "pillow" of water in front of the larger rock, and a standing wave behind the larger rock. Looks like a great surfing spot. To me the primary interest is in the large rock and the "pillow" of water in front of it. It's classic. The smaller rock gives scale and diagonal structure.

 

Perhaps there are rules about how the eye must roam a photograph, but I doubt that they're invariant.

Pictures are art. Not everybody likes everyone elses taste all the time. If everyone had the same taste it would not be art. Envy of good pictures is not the true sense of a true artist. I like all the photos by all the artists in here, because they have meaning to the person that created the picture. If the person taking the picture considers it good...appreciate it, don't cut it down. Great work CARLOS....keep it up.

I feel that the composition as posted is very unbalanced. The submitted crop is much better. A faster shutter speed would have made this work better particularly in it's uncropped form where the movement of water is an essential component.

To make a good critique is as difficult as making a good photo.

 

So I'll stick to my feelings.

 

Original, reality-creator, ambiental, personal, digital. Nice.

 

My congratulations to Carlos.

Carlos & The Audience:

 

I think and some posters may agree with me; This is not the best photo of Carlos, but it gave us the chance to know Carlos's work.

 

My iterest in this photo, is mixted. Some of Us are interested on knowing the tecnical data. Others in the asteatical value. Most uf us in bouth things.

 

I had to tipe this in English very late here so will finish in my languaje... please sorry but carlos may read this.

 

Carlos,

Tu trabajo es excelente, y considero que fue excelente desicion de Poto-net esta fotografia ya que esta obligandonos a ver el resto de tu trabajo el cual es E X C E L E N T E!

A beautiful piece of work, the blend of shade of colour and the prominence of the rocks. Valerie Tandan

The image itself is quite strong, yet quite subtle in its use of flowing forms and overall softness. It pulls you in with its tones and flows through the image. Having said that, I find the rock on the left side distracting and actually detracts from the image somewhat; perhaps it's the stick that I find distracting, I can't quite pin my finger on it. Still, it's a dynamic, compelling image that is very lively in the sense of the motion of the water. It keeps your attention and is quite pleasing overall.

With a little background of time exposures I immediately knew this was water. I am torn between whether or not the exposure was a bit long as the image falls borderline with reality. However, art is art and I do appreciate this artists attempt to capture an unusal and pleasing image...great tones! I've decided I like it and after scolling a bit, I find the crop easier on the eyes.

 

Well done!

It would be nice to know how Carlos loaded the 6x6 film into his D70...

I'd like to know how the hundreds of SQ format shooters I used to work with who cropped 8x10's from their 6x6 frames managed to shove 35mm film in their camera. Must be illegal to crop a dSLR frame, but perfectly fine to use an assortment of cropping masks on medium format.

In any case, while I find the composition facinating, I don't find the muddy, dark water pleasing at all. Local sewage plant over-flow or something? Beats Velvia and 'purple water reciprocity syndrome' though.

Many before me have explained quite well objectively, the faillings of the pictue. Placed in a subjective context, a picture should have some redeeming value, meaning; I look at the picture and it gives something positive back to me - pleasure. I know that Rod Sterling would find some redeeming value in it, I can see it hanging on a wall behind him.

That said, it is truely a strong picture for it's creativity and originality.

hahaha, uh oh! Scott, that's because 35mm doesn't yield an 8x10 format. They must have loaded 4x5 sheet film into those backs, perhaps a more formidable task!

esa galeria me encanta. las photos son tan puras, tienen realmente mucho estilo. particularmente la photo de la semana, se nota la diferencia, y el respecto de la linea. el juego de contrasto es magnifico. esto es B&W de primera clasa. muuuchas gracias.

 

i love your gallery. pure lines. a lot of style. magnificant use of contrast. First class B&W. thank you for good.

I understand what thoes are saying about cropping it giving it a better balance but I say leave it alone! I like this just as it is. It's good to break the rules when it works and I would say it works very well here. I think it isolates the stones and puts more friction between the two.

Very atmospheric and moody. Nice work

I like Michaels crop idea but it doesn't work, as the original doesn't either. Don't get me wrong it's a beautiful image but the top rock is way too close to the edge and just makes the entire image feel confined to my eyes. While Michaels crop helps eleviate some of the tension it can't make up for the fact that it's just too darn close.

Intuitively I knew this was water flowing around rock, but it didn't take a huge leap to imagine this on a much greater scale, as massive outcroppings of rock thrust through the tops of clouds. I love the lighting - I wonder if this was a night exposure. I somewhat agree that it may have been better served had the bottom been cropped slightly, but the current iteration doesn't displease me aesthetically. A nice photo - congrats on POW.

As a static composition, Michael Seewald's crop is superior. For me, however, the power of this photograph is the dynamic component of the flowing water, and this dynamism is most obvious in the foreground. I generally like Michael's tight crops, but in this case I fear that it takes away something essential from the original.

 

Felicidades, Carlos, por una foto magnifica.

 

--Lannie

What I find interesting about this image is the light & shadow variations found in the rocks & water & the extreme texture & detail definition variations between the rocks & the water. I definitely like the re-crop by Michael, it seems more aesthetically balanced for my eyes & brain. I also like the brown tones of the image as opposed to purely B&W.

 

What I find less appealing is the extreme blurring of the water, making it almost unrecognizable as water, more cloud like. Maybe a little less blur would have worked more effectively to define the moving water as water. But then, maybe that was the photographer's intention.

 

All in all an interesting image, but not something that speaks to me.

I find the composition interesting as it is. I wouldn't crop the image. The water is overwhelming and I like it. I think the meaning of the picture could be in this. Like if the water were a menacing element for the rocks. It gives the idea of the enormous pressure of the water. Cropping the bottom of the picture we have a "better" balance of the image, but it makes it less dramatic, horizontal orientation of the picture makes it quiet. For the same reason I like that there's not much space above the rock, it makes it yet more dramatic. The long exposure is good too, water is moving, but it's always moving, nothing's going to change, we don't need to "see" the movement, the blur means movement in a more abstract way.

I fully agree with Landrum Kelly's observation. My first reaction was also that some cropping was needed at the bottom, but after careful consideration, I think indeed that this foreground adds to the dynamism of the shot.

Perhaps the shutter speed could have been shorter, but I like the way Carlos has lifted the scene just above the 'reality' in a kind of surrealistic space.

I have browsed Carlos' portfolio, which is most impressive. And this is perhaps indeed not his best, but it surely is a great shot I envy.

erwin

I find the photo well cooked ,except for the space between rocks.

The composition is perfect, all the negative comments about this image just goes to show how so many photographers do not know how to use space and seem scared to use it as a compositional tool ....... why do critics all seem to think they know best, yet turn out mediocre images themselves ............ GREAT SPACE, GREAT IMAGE.