Turrimetta 23-04

I agree with Gordon about the "flow" within the frame along the diagonal and from left to right. But I only agree partly on the topic of more "artificial" or or more "natural" looking expressions of movement in photography. To some point, yes, nothing is more or less "natural", absolutely speaking, but if you think twice, I do believe some representation of movement are, say, "more familiar to the human eye and senses" than others... For example, if you set a long exposure and take a picture of a wave, using second curtain flash synchro, you'll record a blurry motion of waters, and "at the end of it" (and somehow overlaping with it), a sharp picture of this wave... This interpretation of movement would be among the least natural of all, because our human eye never sees very sharp and very blurry at the same time on the same subject matter... And the eye never sees blurry waters like in this POW either... I used to explain to photography students when I was still teaching, the following:
1) Motion blur + flash (as in my example here) will analyze reality in two ways (impressions and facts) and try to represent at once all the aspects of the movement photographed.
2) Freezing the action will isolate a single moment and show it in a realistic way - i.e. "as our eye can see it in a single moment".
3) Motion blur (whether with paning or as in this POW, alone will be an attempt at making us FEEL the movement... whereby we will lose the single reality of the jumping wave(s), and get a great sense of time an space instead.
4) Sequences of several frames - 2 or more images contribute together in showing different moments of the movement. Such series seem to have the clear goal to show us (in a fairly scientific manner) at the same time the waves, and a few positions occupied by the waves within a couple of seconds or such. An attempt at objectivity, I would say... Photographic sequences have helped scientists, for example, to discover how horses were running...
Basically, there are many ways to (re)present movement and the moving subject, and each way seems to focus on different aspects. And each photographer may pick any way he likes for any picture he takes, of course.

To john A,
About the picture you posted, I'd say I love it, and indeed it's got soul...! Big time ! But how to compare a picture like this with a view of the sea...? I mean, you might as well say that you prefer pictures that represent a portion of reality rearranged by a photographer in a studio...:-) The picture you posted is at least VERY prepared... whereas this POW is a well framed slice of real life as it happened in front of Jeff, on a beach... And for me, the great merit of this POW is that the photographer managed an aesthetically very pleasing representation of something he did not touch or modify in any way - except for using a long shutter speed and framing it the way he wanted... As I see it, that's about the best a photographer can do on a shore... Now does it have "soul"...? Imo, not as much as this POW 2 or 3 weeks ago, but it does have "some" soul, yes...

Marc, the image I linked to was not presented as a comparison image to the OP, but I will get to that later. Why it was posted was in response to a couple of posts that seemed to tie their appreciation of a photograph to that it must be anchored in reality(an oversimplification of what was said). I was essentially trying to find out if I was actually understanding that as the case and was that some sort of criteria people use here. I am new here and was a bit taken back by the comments and a sort of fait accompli in that regard.

As to comparing the OP image and the one I linked, yes, there are grounds to compare them. It is not always a visual thing but more an emotional result of what an image can produce in us. I don't think it matters if it is a portrait, landscape, abstract or street photograph, I think an image either touches us more deeply, becomes more than its subject, or it doesn't. Here, I believe the OP and linked image are actually very similar visually. Each is of something that is real and each is of an abstract nature (more or less). I think there is potential for an image like the OP to be all that the link brings to the table in the "soul" category. I don't think it does that, but of course that is my own opinion. Personally, I learn more from opinions that differ from my own, generally, than one's that do, if they articulate the reasons they feel as they do. It is a way to see something I might be missing or which is outside my awareness. I think that is a great feature of the POW, that you can't get away with an "Oh, that is beautiful" type comment.

Now, as to this idea of long exposure, high shutter speed or whatever, does it matter really in the final analysis? Is our intent in photographing to create something or to record in an accurate way? Of course, both are valid uses of photography, but expressive photography, it would seem, challenges us to look at things in new ways. Or, it may just be that by using a technique or abstraction or other device, that we can take the viewer somewhere new. As such, we decide to create an image that expresses "our" feeling (or copy some technique!) and what it is we want to communicate. Then, it is the viewer that takes over, we have no control at that point. If a viewer likes realistic or approachable representations then you wont necessarily communicate with them with a more abstract image. But I do believe that if we are to grow in our visual sophistication that we need to find a way to look at all kinds of images, especially images we don't respond to initially, and understand what is or what isn't working for us. Of course, you aren't going to do that with every image you see, but this POW thing seems to be set up for this type of purpose. We may not change our mind, but we can grow in our appreciation of what is or has been done. We might also end up back where we began. Of course, I do think that when we stop and look, we learn and grow and over time do change our sense of what is aesthetically pleasing, even if it is a slow process.

I'm glad so many of you pointed out this was a seascape. When I first saw it I really didn't know whether I was looking at cliffs with fog rolling in over them and the reflection of the sun off in the horizon through the fog or a long exposure seascape. To me it is a beautiful image well worthy of POW in my humble opinion. I could see this framed in the right decor/setting. I could also see it as artwork for an inspirational book cover or card. Congrats to the author on having it published and on the sales; it is a fine example of photographic art and I hope to be able to produce images such as this in time.

Well, Gordon, I understand your point, but those extremes are not the only choices for shutter speeds, and some intermediate shutter speeds can give a better approximation to reality, if capturing reality is what one is trying to do. All photography is admittedly artificial, but surely some results more nearly resemble reality. I understand, however, that Jeff was creating something, not trying to imitate reality. I have to admit that it is cleverly done.

It is clear that photos of nature certainly do not have to be realistic, and I do not always evaluate pictures by how realistic they are. (Please see my attached abstract which started as a cirrus cloud at sunset.) Therefore I do appreciate Jeff's creativity with this photo. I just happen to prefer some of his other work, specifically that which to me is indeed more natural. I can appreciate a variety of photos of nature, but, when it comes to nature photography, I just happen to prefer effects that more nearly resemble reality--in most cases.

One curious thing about the Photo of the Week is that I liked it better when I thought that it was fog coming over the top of a mesa. When I realized that it was a seascape, however, I suppose that I evaluated it differently because I realized that it was water, and I don't happen to like water portrayed in this fashion. It is nothing really critical, just a personal preference. I didn't mean to sound so negative. I am a sea kayaker, and I guess that I like for pictures of water to approximate what I see from the kayak. It is a strictly personal preference.

I do like the color palette on this one, and the composition really is almost perfect. Perhaps I have simply gotten tired of this particular genre, or of streams that also flow milky white.

Even so, I would surely say that some treatments are more natural than others. Again, please notice the attached. It is no work of art on my part, but it is (or was) a cirrus cloud. I think I liked the cirrus cloud better when it looked like a cirrus cloud. It was more natural, less artificial.

I don't think that it matters too much if the degree of artificiality is manipulated by Photoshop or by shutter speed or by telephoto (or wide angle) effects. I generally like that which is minimally manipulated--by whatever means. The attached is an exception to that rule. One likes what one likes, and finally one's preference is beyond any need for justification.

--Lannie

Hello,
As my main aim in photography is a search of beauty, I find in this picture a serene outburst of this beauty.
Thanks for this admirable image.

This is metaphysics - the rocks seem will be worn away by the ocean, the dawns will come and go, and it's all about time and the passing of time. An approximation of reality? Spare me the calendars, please!

I would agree with Marc and Landrum in so much as there are many ways to interpret motion and or the passage of time and that some of these techniques fall closer to what we would perceive with the human eye. My point was that I do not for my own purposes feel a need to draw a line in the sand and declare some of these interpretations artificial. I am not convinced that there is such a fixed line.

I really think that that is the point, that the image should dictate if the way motion is represented was effective or not. Sometimes that is objective, sometimes subjective and sometimes it is both. I do think, as Lanny indicated, that we can get tired of seeing a certain technique and we end up developing a bias because of it. Of course, our biases don't make an image effective or ineffective, except to ourselves.

It's a fine photograph and I enjoy it. On first, superficial glance at the thumbnail, scanning across my screen, I saw a view out an airplane window over the arctic from 37,000 feet, and thinking it was an awfully clear window. Of course it's a grand view over the cold Earth. I imagine my way down into the shapes that could be mountains, or small places for the ants and so forth to do their work. (Sometimes I imagine those things as well when I look around me at the real things.) It's playful and meditative. The colors are luscious. I don't see imbalance. The composition provides space for the colors to mingle and blend, and to reflect the colors of the sky. It is clearly a view of reality, however, even if the exact specifics take a moment to decipher.

"I am not convinced that there is such a fixed line". Gordon B.
Agreed. And if there would be a line, it would quickly be washed ashore anyway...:-) Blurry lines is all there is on Earth, as far as I know...:-)

"we can get tired of seeing a certain technique and we end up developing a bias because of it." John A.
True - unfortunately true, I would say, because it somehow limits our apreciation of photographs successfully using this (or any other) well known and over-used technique. I make a point in trying to distinguish good (clever, appropriate, and proficient) usages of any technique, and all sorts of images that reuse a known technique for the simple sake of using it, or in order to "look smart"... And to me, a given usage of a known technique can be clever and therefore become original in a way... poets have used the same words for thousands of years, but not all in the same way. What I dislike is the gratuituous usage of a technique. I think the best way to find out whether motion blur was used well or mis-used for this POW or any other picture, or whether any technique was used appropriately or not, lies in the answer one will give to the following question: "Does the form (technique) match the content (meaning) of a given image ?"

For me the way to achieve a result that has a saying, which will touch my feelings ,interest , and will hold me more than a fraction of a moment observing a photo , is done here. I liked the "silent" foggy motion, the feeling of under current water flowing on the rocks, partly revealing partly covering them ...the diagonal form , clarity of some rocks ,smoothness of seascape, very small delicate nuances of color palette ,in the sand, sea and BG, and the light..It is a poesy of a sea landscape created with a very few elements. (Reminds Japanese Haiku poetry...). and well mastered the terchnic .
Congratulation Jeff

So peaceful and unreal, Bravo!

Apart from the soft pastel colors and an interesting composition, I particularly like the surreal consequences of this long exposure. I get an impression that the rocks are being swept and taken away by the stream of water mist. I like long exposures because they uncover worlds our eyes cannot see. Just wonderful. Congratulations, Jeff !

It is delightful just to look at, which I don't have a problem with. There is enough strident imagery out there, I'm willing to just relax and enjoy something visually.
Putting the elements together, even these extremes, into a soft melody.

Very good , keep up the good work

Stunning! I love the soft color and the movement of the water.