Turrimetta 23-04

http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1010464

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

When I first saw the thumbnail for this image I had a pretty negative visceral reaction, which probably isn't really fair to Jeff. For me, this was a reminder of how personal biases can affect our viewing of images. In this case, I did not react positively to the overall color palette, the use of the long exposure in a seascape( which seems to be overused and gratuitously applied so much these days) or what struck me as a lack of content.

So, it was good that this was a POW, which caused me to really look at the image.

Overall, the image has a bit of the feminine feel to it due to its softness and color while the rocks add a bit more of a masculine texture. The fleshy color and smoothness of the water at the bottom, which is echoed more boldly and definitively at the top, transitions to a more blue purple as the rocks are introduced into the seascape. The texture of the rocks strengthens as we move to the upper right as does the color and contrast of the image. The line created by the left side of this rock face helps draws us back into the image and is aided by the additional "steps" of rock that enter a bit above mid-frame and move us away from the right edge of the image. We are then arched back to the edge as the rock form sweeps that way.

For me, once I reach this upper right area, I felt its weight causes a bit of an imbalance in the image. This is somewhat exacerbated by the soft, light, loose feel at the bottom and along the left side of the image. Although I don't believe the image is totally destroyed by this, I do wonder if the image would have been better served by balancing these tones in the upper right with the rest of the image. Going the other way, darkening the left and lower parts of the image, would certainly have lost some of the ethereal feel that exists and might have introduced some muddiness. But then the lower left area doesn't really have much there to balance the harder rock forms along the upper right, which might indicate a need for more room above or less below if balancing the tones in the upper right didn't restore balance.

In the end, for me, although the image has some nice pictorial qualities, I feel it still doesn't end up with much in the way of content beyond a bit of a nod to the ying and yang of life. Although I can appreciate the image a bit more by having spent time looking at it, it still doesn't rock my boat, if you will. But it is still a nice, pleasant image as attested to by so many who commented on the image before.

John A. said it best with his last and final comment: It is still a nice, pleasant image. To move further into the terms of WOW, or Extraordinary, I would suggest a couple of crops. Why? because they are there. Make a horizontal rectangle rather than a square of this "pleasant" image. Cut the sky and horizon away midway from the horizon to the upper-most rocks, and make a similar cut at the bottom half way up to the rocks. The blue tones look best in my view with just a hint of the pinkish tones. Those pinks fight for the forfront, when we know the rocks are the subject. I think my suggested crops make for a more dramatic shot.

Willie The Cropper

This photo reminds me of the "crotch" due photo of a few weeks back. Again my issue is that it is so abstracted that it has no frame of reference that helps the viewer understand/appreciate scale/context. I can't tell if I'm looking at some gigantic form through clouds or whether these things are about a foot square in size or somewhere in between. Again, I long for something that gives me a clue so that I can appreciate these formations. Otherwise it might has well have been generated in its entirety in Photoshop.

I meant to say the "crotch" DUNE photo.

Soft, tranquil, pastel colors. Well done. Suitable for framing.

This is the best photo of the week I have seen on this site. First time I leave a coment on a pow. I have seen so many amazing pictures and they always pick ugly or b&w pictures. Why? I dont know. This is the best I have seen congratulations.

Many thanks to the Elves for my second POW. It looks like it may attract a bit of discussion judging by what has been said so far. Oddly enough, this is one of the more successful images that I have taken, and I certainly don't think that is my best image by a long shot. In fact, I almost didn't bother scanning it. When I saw it on the lightbox, it was very close to blown out but a little persistence and a great scanner salvaged it.

Since posting it on PN:
it has become one of the most viewed images on PN courtesy of a long stint on the front page
been sold by me via my web site
is available through the agency that prints my images
been published in PhotoArt as part of a portfolio of my work

I still like it a lot but a quick perusal of my portfolio will show that I like images like this.

Unlike John A., who made very accurate statements about composition and colors, this "unbalance" between top right and bottom left doesn't bother me the slightest bit... If there's a cat left in a photo, should there always be a cat right...? Obviously not. So, for me, what would be interesting, is to analyse precisely WHY John felt this way, why some people felt disturbed by the lack of balance between bottom left and top right...
The way I see this picture, as far as I am concerned...: It's just wonderful. I simply love the way the hard shapes of the rocks get little by little " EXTRACTED " from the sea, as the eye moves in from bottom left to top right... Hard Masculine shapes emerge from soft feminine blurry waters along the way, just as the Earth, the Universe and all Solid Elements are supposed to have emmerged from the Chaos of the Big Bang.
Etymologically speaking, what I see at work here is the PHA- appearing through the KHA- (indo-european radicals) : the Word (Creation) coming from nowhere/nothing/emptiness (Chaos).
Most poetic picture, Jeff... Congrats.

Reading Marc G.'s comment reminded me that I actually didn't include one of my initial reactions, above, when looking at this photo.

Regarding balance, of course it is not about mirroring objects, but there either is or isn't visual balance in an image. Sometimes imbalance can actually serve intent and I suppose there can be honest disagreement as to whether that is the outcome or not.

When I first looked at this image, I was convinced that the horizon was not level, that it drooped to the right. Of course, it is perfectly level, but the relative darkness in the upper right did seem to pull the image down in that corner creating a significant imbalance in the visual presentation.

So, the second analysis is whether imbalance serves the image or not. Unlike Marc's conclusion, although we seem to agree on many other things, I just felt that the content here was not strong enough to make the device, imbalance, work. In fact, ying-yang is about balance. Of course, if someone doesn't agree with that, I am not willing to delve into that can of worms!:)) But seriously, I don't think the content or subject matter supports this imbalance.

Possibly, had the image struck me on a more positive, visceral level, I would have overlooked or rationalized how this imbalance works, but I really don't particularly respond to the image and the more objective analysis seems to indicate this to be a flaw, IMO.

(hopefully this is a more precise analysis of this issue!)

Perfect composition

The soft, flowing pastels covering but only incompletely obscuring the dark, angular forms of the rocks below is an incredibly interesting and beautiful dynamic. I find this to be a simply superb photograph.

Well Jeff,
After all of these dos and donts and shoudas and wouldas do you know now how to make this a great shot :-).
I see and feel an abstract emotion along with something very soothing about your photo. The colors work well and the balance and composition is very tastefully done. Can it be done other ways? Yes and they would all be different but not necessarily better and they could all be taken apart and technically analyzed to the most profound and pedantic degree.
I see good lines, a multitude of textures and tones that gradate beautifully with one another and a crop that brings it all to a pleasing light.
Well Done Jeff.

Strong shot according to,composition-soft tones and colours...Nice effects,such as walking on clouds...Regards(Bobby).

As opposed to Andy D., I thought at first that the sky should be cropped. But no, it shouldn't. I also wasn't quite sure whether this is fog or sea - it's quite amazing what you can do with blurred motions! This is so unlike the all-repetitive, seen-everywhere, rocks peeping out of the sea, but has dreamlike, other-planet-worthy qualities.

 

My verdict: superb.

Es un auténtico lujazo de imagen. la suavidad de los tonos es espectacular.
Enhorabuena por ella.

Saudos

Congrats, Jeff,

I know relatively little about "Art", and I may be contradicting some earlier post I made elsewhere, but what Phineas stated about this picture is making me think that there are two kinds of abstracts: One, like paint splatters, or blobs of color, that don't appear to be anything in particular other than an assortment, or assemblage of colors, shapes and forms; and two, details, or views, of small parts of a larger whole that result in images unrelated to the whole. This shot is the latter, obviously. It shows us something in such a way as to confound our senses, if only for a few moments, about what we're looking at. However, once we know what we're looking at, appreciation should increase (hopefully, anyway). Phineas states that there is "no frame of reference that helps the viewer understand/appreciate scale/context" That may be true, but I would expect such an opinion to be balanced once the frame of reference is obtained, either by a title, or a bit of biography, for example. I agree with Phineas if he is saying that, under ideal circumstances, a photo should be able to inform the viewer adequately enough for the viewer to understand it. I've judged many an image using that very criteria, however, with subsequent enlightenment, my opinions have often changed.

Doug, I also read Phineas' entry and now that you have brought up a similar perspective to his, although yours recognizes the ability to understand what this image is, I thought it might be interesting to explore this thought. Hopefully, this will not be off topic as it certainly has relevance to this image.

One of my favorite photographs of all time is one my Minor White referenced here (and not the best reproduction of it):
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/white/white_capitol_reef_full.html

Now, I have photographed in the region where this was taken for over 30 years and still have never figured out what this image actually was taken of, but then I don't see that it matters. Marc G. commented on a POW a few weeks ago about the landscape image having "soul" and that is what I see in the referenced image. It has transcended subject and become something of its own. It is partially its mystery that makes this image continue to live for me every time I look at it. So, reading Doug's and Phineas' comments, I am wondering if there is a widely held view here than an image must be "figured out" to have or gain in value.

Looking at Jeff's image here, does its beauty and value rely on our knowledge of what it is or can it be something of its own? When I spoke of content, I was essentially referring to this "soul" if you will and how does an image work on us beyond describing some recognizable reality.

Anyway, I was just curious how the ability to recognize what something is and its perceived effectiveness as an image correlate in this forum---and why if it is is it considered important?

I have viewed and enjoyed this image more than once. To be honest, I don't know why I didn't leave a message before now, so I must thank the "elves" for reminding me. The composition, the colors, the interesting linear structures are all simply wonderful. Nicely done. Dan

A beautiful picture that captures the beauty of nature!

beautiful sea scape. the water like a sand storm over the geography looks almost surreal. The light and colour tones really make this an original work. the 'softness' of the whole work makes this almost timeless.

This does remind me a lot of some 3D fractal images I've seen, but perhaps that is not very surprising, as AFAIK many rendered landscapes are based on various fractal formulas. In any case, this makes the image interesting for me, as its abstract look kind of places it between the strictly computer-generated images and 'natural' everyday landscape shots, even though its origins are firmly on physical reality.

Milky-looking water just does not do it for me, whether it is in photos of the ocean or of streams. I like waves, and I like to see waves or texture in water in photographs, even if they are small waves. I am sure that the technique is good, and by a lot of different criteria this is no doubt a well-done photo. It simply is not to my taste.

Artificial renderings of nature simply defeat the whole purpose of nature photography for me.

--Lannie

Freezing a wave at 1/2000 sec. is no less artificial than allow time to accumulated at 15 sec. Neither is truly representative of the fluid motion of a wave and neither is what you are going to see standing on a shoreline. If anyone attempts to capture a single image of an object in motion some number of choices will have to be made regarding how best to capture the scene. You can pan with the motion or against it , you can freeze the motion or allow it to accumulate you have myriad options. To suggest that some choices are " artificial " as apposed to others makes no sense to me.
One of the many appealing aspects of this well done and quite beautiful photo is the transition in clarity from corner to corner and how this works with the transition from light to dark traveling from left to right within the frame. Both aspects generate a sense of flow befitting the subject matter.

Congrats Jeff, I've been studying your seascapes for some time and this image above is a fine example of that particular period of the evolution of your art.