Untitled

This is stunning stuff here! I can't quite make up my mind if the rocks are suspended in fog, on a sandy beach, or floating on the still surface of a lake. The faint double shadow of the rock on the left is intriguing as hell. Well, however the heck you did this, I love the end result. The details in the rock on the right knock a guy out (especially the thick black sinuous vein)! Fabulous, as usual, Mike (the Master of Illusion)! Thanks for sharing! Cheers! Chris

Simple but very expressive!The rocks seems in 3d.Good depth!Congrat.and salutoni..

Thanks guys. The ratings this has received set in concrete my decision to not renew my membership to this website. I have offered this image for critique in a number of different circles prior to posting here and know (objectively) that it is a "good" image.

I hear you loud and clear; but I invite you to maybe reconsider. Let me explain why. First, everyone on this site knows that the ratings and rating system is a joke; and, frankly, who gives a rip? I gave up submitting any of my images for ratings; I look for critiques and offer critiques. Second, your work is incredibly important; and as you well know, each and every time you post an image, a whole lot of us come over for a visit and look-see. I think that you get some good constructive feedback on your photographs; and that can validate much of the hard work that you've put into the image(s). I think it safe to say that a significant majority of us really do appreciate your work, techniques, and skills. This brings me to the third point, Mike. Believe it or not, I have learned so much from your work over the past couple of years. You have had an influence on my work; and I'd bet that you've been a positive force in a whole bunch of other folk's work too. My recommendation is to treat PN like a 'bulletin board,' tack up your image, and let all of us attach post-it notes with comments and suggestions. Just don't put these works of art up for ratings. I apologize for the length of this, but you and your images mean a lot to me, and I'd hate to see you go. Let me know what you decide to do, my friend. Cheers! Chris

Mike you have a couple of things going against you. 1. It's B&W. 2. It very well seen. 3. Well executed. 4. A very good image. - Sean

A small step to the right, and you would have lost the cliff (?), very well composed landscape. Contrast, tones, lines - excellent photo. If I were picky I would comment on the very slightly off horizon. BTW, I didnt renew my membership for same reason (but, do you know a really good alternative ?)

Mike, I second much of what Chris says. The ratings system here is seriously flawed, and I gave up on ratings some time ago (I don't rate, and I submit only for critique). Unfortunately, that means most images disappear after about a day, because PN seems to be built around the rating system.

 

Marc Adamus suggested that I try Nature Photographers Network (I think that's the name; it's a complex site that I'm still trying to figure out). Marc is one of the moderators. They don't rate, and I find that the comments tend to be honest: praise where praise is due, helpful comments when something falls short.

 

The web address is: http://www.naturephotographers.net/index.html

 

I've only posted two images in my portfolio so far, and I'm still learning the ropes over there.

i now see your images for the first time - today - having come across Carsten Ranke's comment on this one. a quick glance through your portfolio tells me that you really must stay! Or at least tell us where you've gone if you go! i have a bunch of unposted images that aspire to images like yours (which i will get round to posting sometime) and i can see from my glance that i have much to learn from a more detailed peruse through your portfolio. as it stands, the rating system is farcical (and, sure, this undermines the credibility of the site); but choose, if you will, to submit for critique without rating (such as does the likes of Marc Adamus etc). i will say this for photo.net - there are many great practitioners out there from whom i have learned much and from whom i still have much to learn. you staying will only facilitate this. great use of shadow and reflection - and their absence with the second rock! stuart

Now, back to this image. The detail in the rocks is absolutely incredible, and that detail contrast so nicely with the water as well as with the sky.

 

I hope you don't mind a few questions: 1) Do you get better results in B&W by using B&W film versus using color transparencies and converting in PS (channel mixer)? 2) Does a lab process your B&W film, or is that something that can be done relatively easily (and with just as good results) at home? 3) How do you scan your B&W?

 

Thanks. Steve P.

Well thanks again. I do post to naturephotographers.net and also to flickr and end up getting a good cross section of comments which results in a fair critique of a work.

 

Stephen, my preference is for B&W film as there are a multitude of developer/film combinations making the degree of control and creativity available quite vast. Also, there is something about the look of film that can't be beat. Importantly, for me, film works very well with long exposures which is what I do all the time plus the use of coloured filters for B&W (contrast and tone adjustment between colours) adds another tool in the creative tool box. I scan using a Nikon ED8000 and develop all my film at home, it's very easy and enjoyable and CHEAP. Hope that helps.

 

Mike

It is art at its best. For the rating system People here need to learn what is good photo .I hope you stay as you inspire me with your work.

Mike, I like this one best of the 3. It seems more balanced than the other two, and maybe for that reason keeps me locked in longer. Tones are particularly good here too. I probably agree a step to the right might have been worth a try to lose the interaction between the foreground and landmass on the horizon. All 3 are a little more adventurous than the typical cliche seascape - maybe that's part of what you are seeing in the ratings (which would be a good thing!).